Income Tax Judgements

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 several dates the hearing was adj

The brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual. He has filed his return of income on 18.12.2006 declaring an income of Rs.155,27,356. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) of t

Briefly stated the facts of the case for the A.Y. 1998-99 are that the assessee bank filed its return claiming depreciation of `25,70,03,293. The Assessing Officer observed that there was substantial variation between the amount of depreciation as pe

However, at the time of hearing no one was present on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment application received. Appeal was passed over in the first round. Even in the second round also the position remained the same. The record shows that the

The tribunal in the impugned order has examined the factual matrix relating to acquisition/purchase of the equity shares mentioned at serial nos.1 to 3 and the investment in mutual funds. It has reached a categorical and a firm conclusion that the bo

The only issue that arises for adjudication is whether the assessee is a “Trader” or an “Investor”. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee is engaged in the business activity as far as share purchase and sale are concerned. The first appellate

The facts which revealed from the records are as under. The assessee company is engaged in the business of providing business process management, transitioning services, BPO services to its clients. The assessee is carrying out the said activity from

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.78,84,241/- being the excess amount of unexpired service contracts holding that since the service contract is spread over 2 accounting

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction uls.801B(10) of Rs. 1,90,03,948!- by placing reliance upon various decisions ignoring the facts that the le

Facts, in brief, as per relevant orders are that on the basis of information received from the office of Addl.DIT (Investigation), Ghaziabad that the assessee deposited cash in his bank account No.785 in Punjab National Bank, BB Nagar, Ghaziabad duri