Income Tax Judgements

The petitioner had filed return of income for the assessment year in question under Section 139(4) of the Act on 6th October, 2010. The contention of the petitioner is that the Assessing Officer could have initiated scrutiny assessment proceedings by

The factual matrix of the case is that the assessee-company is engaged in the business of licensing, manufacturing, distribution and selling of diamonds under the brand “Nakshatra”. In the course of scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted t

In paragraph 2 of the judgment, it was pointed out by this Court that the learned counsel for the assessee/appellant confined his grievance only to disallowance of payment of `2,00,000/- made to one Mr. Sunil Kumar. This issue has been considered and

In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO tog grant exemption u/s. 11 of the I.T Act to the assessee trust when the order dt. 31.12.2008 u/s. 12AA(3) of the Act has been appealed before the

Facts, in brief, as per relevant orders are that return declaring nil income filed by the assessee, was selected for scrutiny with the service of a notice u/s 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), issued on 27th Aug

Facts in brief:– The assessee, a company, is engaged in the business of printing of newspapers and periodicals. It filed its return of income declaring total income at ` nil on 30th October 2007. The Assessing Officer passed an order under section 14

Permission to withdraw the appeal made by the appellant

That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A), Kolkata has erred in law in directing the A.O. to treat sundry receipts of Rs.56,l0,000/- as business income without appreciating the fact that the assessee at the same time claims 60:40 di

The facts giving rise to the present writ petition and which are necessary for a decision in this writ petition are very few. By virtue of an order dated 31.03.2008, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal disposed of the said ITA Nos. 3584 to 3586 (Del)/2

The DIT (E) has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in canceling the Registration u/s 12A(a) with effect from assessment year 2009-10 and onwards, discarding the fact that the Society is engaged in providing medical relief to the