Income Tax Judgements

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

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in overlooking the fact that though similar issue was raised during A.Y. 2005-06 and 2006-07 and decided in favour of the assessee by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, but the Custom

Out of the 05 (Five) Grounds of Appeal filed by the appellant against the order of the CIT(A) dt. 01-12-2010, the following 03 (Three) Grounds of Appeal are effective. They are: “The learned CIT(A) 21 erred in upholding the adding back to the tota

It was submitted that there is a major increase in sale as well as the profit of the company and that is only due to the efforts of the said director of the company. It was submitted that the provisions of Section 36 (1)(ii) will not be applicable. I

We can observe that the penalty under sec 271(1) (c) can be imposed only on the basis which can survive and not by manipulating the basis on the falls fact.

The facts mentioned in the assessment order are that the return declaring total income of Rs. 51,27,967/- was filed on 31.10.2002. In the course of assessment, it was inter-alia found that the assessee sold its property situated at B-19, Okhla Indust