Income Tax Judgements

The grounds raised read as under: “(i) 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 passing the order u/s. 154 even though there was no error apparent from

Facts of the case is that the assessee filed return of income for the relevant Assessment Year 2005-06 on 28.10.2005 disclosing ‘Nil’ total income after claiming deduction u/s. 10B of the Act of Rs.6,30,71,257/-. Assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act was

We have heard the learned DR and the learned counsel for the assessee. The learned counsel for the assessee filed written submissions with a copy orders pages 1-20. The interesting point is that the revenue filed misc. petition in connection with IT(

We have heard both the parties and gone through the facts of the case as also the aforesaid decision relied upon by the ld. DR. A mere glance at the impugned order reveals that the order passed by the ld. CIT (A) is cryptic and grossly violative of o

Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in holding that duty entitlement pass book credit was cash assistance within the meaning of clause (iiib) to Section 28 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the entire amount including the premium receiv

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 83,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on protective basis in respect of income from alleged undisclosed sources on the basis of the c

TDS deducted but not deposited within the time limit prescribed u/s. 201 of the Act. The same was deposited on 15.02.2006. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee could not contribute anything which supports his case. But after going through the records, we

Section 41(1) of the Act, as it existed at the relevant time, was as under:- “41. Profits chargeable to tax.—(1) Where an allowance or deduction has been made in the assessment for any year in respect of loss, expenditure or trading liability inc

Following effective grounds of appeal:- 1. That the ld.CIT(A) had erred in deleting disallowance of Rs.8,66,798/- as disallowed by the AO which was claimed by the assessee as business loss. 2. That the ld.CIT(A) had erred in deleting the additi

section 10A, the eligible business (appellant’s branch office in this case) is to be considered as a separate entity and transfer of goods or services by eligible business to/from other business of the assessee are to be treated as if such transfer h