Income Tax Judgements

It was the submission by the ld. AR that the show cause notice issued u/s 263 of the IT Act on 23.01.2012 had not mentioned which order was erroneous nor had he mentioned the error in the assessment order. It was the submission that the show cause no

Facts, in brief, as per relevant orders are that e-return declaring income of ``32,780/- filed on 21.11.2006 by the assessee, engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading in home furnishing, after being processed u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax

The Income Tax authorities made re-assessments on 28.12.2007. The order was carried in Appeal. The Appellant had objected to the assumption of jurisdiction under Section-147 of the Act by the A.O. and also objected to the addition of certain amounts

By way of this appeal, the Assessing Officer has challenged correctness of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)’s order dated 04.11.2011 in the matter of order u/s. 154 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2005-06. The a

Having regard to Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules, 1963 and following various decision of the Tribunal including in the case of C.I.T. vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del.) and the judgement of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the c

I have carefully considered the assessment order and the submissions made by the ld. AR in this regard. As per the facts of this case, the appellant company is a 100% subsidiary of the holding company M/s McCann-Erickson (India) Pvt. Ltd. M/s McCann

Brief facts are that the assessee is a cooperative society engaged in the construction of about 476 flats. It has claimed that due to dispute between different groups of members, complaints were made for violation of cooperative group housing society

At the time of hearing the ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of assessee has submitted a copy of the adjournment petition made before ld.CIT(A) dated 09.02.2011 and submitted that the ld. CIT(A)’s observations that no applications for adjournment were

That without prejudice to Ground No. 1 above , the l earned Commissioner of Income Tax erred in holding that the Assessing Of f ice r failed to consider the applicability of provisions of sect ion 115JB of the Income Tax Act , 1961 when the tax payab

That the Ld. CIT(A) was unjustified in confirming the addition of Notional Interest of Rs.7.18 Crore allegedly due from M/s. V. B. Desai & Co. without any cogent reasons. 1.1. That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that after the judgment of the Sp