Income Tax Judgements

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee under the head “interest and other charges” had debited an amount of `.2056.50 lakhs on account of “guarantee & other charges”. During the assessment proceedings from the perusal of these details, the

Brief facts are: The assessee is engaged in the manufacturing of hardware made of brass such as electric switch cover, door handles and lock handles etc. Prior to this year the assessee was into exports of these goods to U.S. market. During the year

That the Revenue has erred in law and on facts in adding the amount of ` `3,667/- which pertains to the difference in closing balance of amount receivable from M/s Heritage Resorts Pvt. Ltd. as per their books and as per our books of Accounts. Th

A search and seizure operation was carried out on 5.10.2007 in the business and residential premises of Choksey group of businesses. Since the assessee had business connections with the group, his business and residential premises were also searched

From the case observe the following fact... The learned CIT (Appeals), erred in confirming the finding of the Assessing Officer in not considering the gains on the sale of shares of Rs. 4,89,18,734/- as long term capital gains and thereby also con

At the time of hearing, none has put in appearance on behalf of the assessee. Also, no adjournment application is on the record. Keeping in view these facts, we are of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeal. Therefo

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company engaged in manufacturing of Rubber products and having manufacturing unit at Andheri and Grant Road. For the year under consideration, the appellant company decla

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grossly erred in upholding the action of ld. Assessing Officer in treating the loss on sale of shares as capital loss which is otherwise

The grounds of appeal read as under:- i) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-II, Dehradun has erred in law and in the facts and circumstances of the case in upholding the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3)/254 of the I.T. Act, 19

We have carefully considered the submissions of the rival parties and perused the material available on record. After having satisfied about the reasons submitted by the assessee and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the