Income Tax Judgements

The brief facts of the case are that search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 10.5.2007 in M/s. U. Flex Ltd., Group of cases. The assessee was also covered under the search operation. In order to giv

Briefly stated assessee is a Member of Stock Exchange, Mumbai. Vide order dated 4.4.2001 assessee was debarred from undertaking any fresh business as a stock broker or merchant banker till further orders. This order was confirmed by SEBI vide order d

Assessee company is deriving income from doing hard chromium plating on textiles, embossing rollers, mirror rollers, machinery parts etc. and rent from its building premises at Worli. Return of income was filed on 26.09.2008 declaring net loss of 1.8

Even on the facts, it is noticed that the D.V.O has estimated the cost of construction at Rs.. 29,06,032/- as against the cost of construction recorded by the assessee of Rs.26,29,160/-. The variation is amount of Rs. 2,76,863/,- which is less than 1

Capital expenditure debited to P&L account: In the Tax Audit Report, the auditor has identified the amount as capital expenditure. The details of the same have been furnished in the Annexure 1 to the Audit Report. Accordingly, the same was clearly di

In appellate proceedings, Ld. CIT(A) allowed the assessee’s claim that the interest income of ` 13,17,241/- was not to be taxed as income from other sources. However, ITAT vide its order in ITA No. 1378/Del/2005 dated 25.3.2008 reversed the order of

That in a case were the assessee has filed two sets of audited accounts one before the assessing officer and the other before the Bank for which loans were taken. The CIT(A), erred both in the Laws and in Facts in not invoking the provisions under c

The only issue for consideration relates to disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. The facts of the case stated in brief are that during the year under consideration the assessee company had earned dividend income of Rs.5,32,09,158/- and claimed the same a

At the time of hearing the learned counsel for the assessee fairly submitted that identical issue has come up in the case of Ramesh D. Tainwala in ITA No. 3853/Mum/2010 wherein the ITAT “D” Bench Mumbai concluded that provisions of section 28(va)(a)

The first assessment order was passed in this case u/s.143(3)/144B on 12.04.1984. A search & seizure operation was conducted in the case of the assessee on 04.11 .1982. Various documents and books of accounts were seized and the contents of such seiz