Income Tax Judgements

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of N deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80HH of the Income Tax Act, 1961

We have heard both the sides and perused the material placed before us. The facts of the case are that the impugned appeal has originated from the assessment order dated 28.12.2010 which was passed by the Assessing Officer in pursuance to the order u

This petition filed in public interest has been listed and is taken up for hearing on urgent mentioning. The petitioner, an Advocate, invites attention of this Court to the difficulties likely to be faced by the Differently Abled candidates in the ex

Referring to the grounds of appeal, it was submitted by the learned AR that the assessee had reasonable and sufficient cause for non-appearance before CIT (A) as Shri Ajay Gupta was suffering from high blood pressure. He submitted that otherwise also

The return of income in the present case was filed at a loss of Rs.19,03,733/-. The only addition made to that loss is regarding depreciation claimed on computers which is granted by the Assessing Officer @15% as against the claim of the assessee of

The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is a Doctor by profession and also a partner in Shushrusha Hospital & ICU. During the year under consideration, the assessee filed his return of income declaring total income at Rs. 2,94,000/-. Subsequently,

. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd.; 38 ITD 320 (Del), the appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal, which was fixed for hearing. But on the date of hearing nobody represented the revenue/appellant nor any

From the observation we can find the following fact.. The assessee is a company engaged in management consultancy, implementation of internal controls, system audits, arranging finance from financial institutions and financing and advisory services

That being so and in view of the recent CBDT Instruction No. 3 of 2011 dated 9th February, 2011 reported in (2011) 332 ITR 1 (Statutes) and the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Madhukar K. Inamdar (

Analysis of the case found the following ... Ground no. 1 is regarding the disallowance of interest u/s. 14A. We have heard the learned AR as well as the learned DR and considered the relevant material on record. Both the parties have agreed that th