Income Tax Judgements

In this case, the facts are that the original assessment in this case was completed u/s. 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 wherein, apart from others, disallowance on account of payment of interest of Rs. 10832532/- was made. Being aggrieved by the order of

Facts, in brief, as per relevant orders are that return declaring income of Rs.7,08,754/-filed on 04.03.2009 by the assessee, after being processed u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as the Act), was selected for scrutiny w

From the observation we can find the following fact, it is very clear that assessee has not obtained any benefit of enduring nature. The royalty is payable on the basis of volume of sales year to year. In the event of termination of agreement has to

The tax effect in this case is found to be less than Rs.3 lac, the limit prescribed under Instruction No. 3/2011 dated 09.02.2011 and when Ld.CIT(DR) was apprised of this fact, she could not controvert the same and she was also unable to show that th

The brief facts of the case are that assessee has filed its return of income on 30.3.2003 declaring an income of Rs.43,400. This return was processed under sec. 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 25.5.2003 at the returned income. According to the

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