Income Tax Judgements
No one was present on behalf of the assessee and no adjournment petition was also moved on behalf of assessee. At the time of hearing before us two defects were found in the receipt. Firstly the appeal is not signed by the Managing Director and secon
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in :- Deleting the addition of ` 6,33,212/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of Long Term Capital Gain u/s. 50C(1) of the Income Tax
The fact of the is the applicability of provision of sec 271 (1) (C) of the Act.after disclosure of the fact in Balance Sheet.
Sec 36(1)(viia) applies to bad debts arising out of rural advance of a bank
CS Bijoy 07 June 2012 at 13:20
We can find the facts of the case after considering the above as well as on law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming disallowance of provision for bad and doubtful debts to the extent of Rs.63,45,02,440 claimed by the appellant under the first
Assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that applying Rule 8D for the year under consideration is against the ratio laid down by the Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs D
if the assessee through proper application can satisfy the Tribunal for such non appearance on the date of hearing, the Tribunal may at its discretion recall this order.
Late deposit of TDS cannot be the reason of disallowance uas per sec 40a(ia)
CS Bijoy 05 June 2012 at 13:31
Facts, in brief, as per relevant orders are that return declaring income of ``12,75,862/- on a/c of short term capital gains and nil business income filed on 30.09.2008 by the assessee, after being processed u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (he
In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to grant exemption u/s. 11 of the IT Act to the assessee when the status of the assessee that was held as “AOP” for the reasons as discussed in t
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in disallowing an ad-hoc amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- towards gift expenses on the alleged ground that the gift expenses are not incurred wh
Before us, both the learned Representatives agree that the tax effect in the Revenue’s appeal is less than ` 3,00,000. As per CBDT Instruction no.3 of 2011, dated 9th February 2011, the appeal before the Appellate Rishabh Investments P. Ltd. Tribuna
Trending Online Classes
CAclubindia
