Income Tax Judgements

After informing that matter will be heard on a particular date, no one appeared on behalf of assessee. Nor there is any application for adjournment. In view of above, it appears that assessee is not interested in prosecuting this appeal. Hence this a

For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the assessment order passed was in violation of principles of natural justice hence is bad in law and be quashed. (2) For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Assessing Office

The main fact of the case is that there is no provision in section 115JB to allow deduction under section 54EC of the Act. Computation of book profit is provided under section 115JB, which is a separate code by itself, wherein the first step is to co

The facts filed before the first appellate authority indicate that the assessee was retired from Ministry of Defence as Defence Estate Officer long back, from where he was getting his pension. After retirement he had started his own business of sale

That on facts and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding disallowance of additional depreciation to the tune of Rs. 4,05,12,853 and Rs. 1,52,73,164 on plant and machinery and tippers respectively without appreciating that the appellant was engaged in

We find that the AO has not given any reason for disallowing the claim. We also find that the AO has simply followed the findings of earlier assessment years. As similar additions in earlier assessment year has been deleted by Ld. CIT(A) which has be

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) was correct in holding that consultancy fees paid to Singapore based foreign company were not chargeable to tax in India, as well as the applicability of section 40(a)(ia)

The learned counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that in the immediately preceding assessment years, Assessing Officer has accepted the existence of PE as well as the profit attributable to such PE. Hence, income of the assessee has

Having regard to Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules, 1963 and following various decisions of the Tribunal including in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del.) and the judgment of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case

None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the appeal was called for hearing nor any request for adjournment was filed. Earlier also none appeared on behalf of the assessee on 21.2.2012. In these circumstances, it , therefore, appears that the asse