Income Tax Judgements

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

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of Soya Oil. In the case of Ruchi Soya Group, a search and seizure action u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (the Act) was carried out by th

We find that the only grievance of the Revenue is that the amendment brought in the Income Tax Act u/s. 40(a(ia) was only effective from 1.4.2010 and not retrospective in nature

The brief facts of this issue are that while doing the scrutiny assessment AO observed that “the assessee firm vas engaged in the business of developing and promoting. During the course of hearing, Sri Chakraborty, A/r of the firm, furnished various

An application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the IT Rules, whereby the AR filed copy of Bank A/c, passport and professional license issued to the firm in Dubai where Shri Sunil Bhatia, the Director of the appellant company is

At the time of hearing before us, the ld. DR appearing on behalf of revenue by pointing out the various observations made by AO and the ld. CIT(A) contended that ld.CIT(A) has given only 7 days for giving the Remand Report in respect of unexplained l

Brief facts relevant for adjudication of grounds No.1 & 2 are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing harness testers and measuring instruments. From the perusal of the Schedule of fixed assets forming part of the bala

This case was listed for hearing before the Tribunal on 17-5-2012 and for this assessee was informed. Today i.e. on 17-5-2012 when the case was called on board, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any request for adjournment has been filed be

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation @ 60% on ITG Networking equipments as against 25% allowed by the Assessing Officer

At the time of hearing before us, it is stated by the learned counsel for the assessee that in this case, the notice of hearing was served by affixture. Thus, it is clear that no notice was actually received by the assessee ever. He further pointed o