Income Tax Judgements

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

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as in facts in deleting the addition of `30,41,520/- made by the AO on account of sale value of free copies distributed by the assessee. On the facts and circumst

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