Income Tax Judgements

The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The shares of the assessee are wholly owned by the Government of Maharashtra. The assessee has been appointed as the New Town D

The facts in brief are that the AO during the assessment proceedings noted from details of unsecured loans that the assessee had taken unsecured loan of Rs.14,60,052/- from Shri Balwantbhai Grewal during the year. The AO therefore, asked the assessee

At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had filed an appeal before the ITAT being aggrieved by the order of learned CIT(A) who had treated the short term capital gains of `82,32,316/- as business income. The IT

That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in not quashing the impugned assessment order passed by Assessing Officer u/s. 147 that too without the serving the

Facts indicate that in this case, the assessee was a proprietor of a boutique, which she was running at Naraina Vihar, New Delhi. She had inherited jewellery from her late mother and father from the locker which was relinquished to her vide a Relinqu

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in quashing the assessment despite the specific saver provided under the Act by way of section 292BB because section 292BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pro

The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1.That on the facts and in circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that once the profit is estimated after rejecting books of accounts, there is no scope for further disal

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee wrote off a sum of Rs.19,48,743/- in its books of account towards Cafeteria expenses. On being called upon to explain as to how such deduction was claimed, the assessee submitted that the pr

The grounds raised in the appeal by the Revenue read as under:- “1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition of ` 16,20,725/- by holding that the GP rate of 24.54% as shown by

Despite sending notice of hearing sufficiently in advance, assessee did not appear nor any application for adjournment has been received at the time of hearing of the appeal, in spite of the fact that earlier also on 23.3.2011 and 10.8.2011, the appe