Income Tax Judgements

At the time of hearing, it was pointed out that the amount mentioned in the grounds is not correct and the correct amount is Rs. 25,70,208/- instead of Rs. 72,96,230/-. The ld DR has accepted this factual mistake in the ground. Accordingly, we proce

It would be appropriate to give a brief background of the case before we proceed to deal with the miscellaneous application. The revenue in the ground No.6 had raised dispute regarding deletion of addition by CIT(A) in relation to expenditure incurre

Briefly stated the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had total receipts of Rs.1,40,54,731/- out of which Rs.1,27,70,141/- were the bills raised during the year, but the assessee accounted for the net commission at Rs.41,19,613/-. He further

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Income Tax officer erred in law in interpreting the personal effects i.e. capital receipts as revenue receipts received by your appellant for maturity of Life Insurance Policy and by

The facts of the case are that the assessee company is a subsidiary of Saraswat Co.Op.Bank Ltd., and the assessee company provides software development and information technology enabled services to its holding company, i.e. Saraswat Bank. During the

From the observation we can find the following fact.. The assessee is engaged in the business of jobbing / arbitrage activities. He undertakes business of share trading on his own account. He filed his return of income on 27th July 2006, declaring

At the very outset, Ld. DR submitted that with respect to all the three additions of Rs.4,37,45,772/-, 5,64,000/- and Rs.5,39,585/- on account of purchases, excess remuneration and commission paid respectively, the assessee did not file necessary con

We find that appeal in this case was filed on 4.2.2011 i.e. before the aforesaid instruction dated 9.2.2011. However, tax effect is below even ``2 lacs, stipulated in CBDT instruct ion no. 5 of 2008 dated 15.5.2008. Moreover, a co-ordinate Bench vide

We have heard the ld AR of the assessee as well as the ld DR and considered the relevant material on record. The Assessing Officer has disallowed a sum of Rs.1,61,390/- u/s 14A by applying Rule 8D of I T Rules. The CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowa

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in directing to allow interest under section 244A on the amount of self assessment tax ignoring the Circular No.769 and 790 issued by the CBDT The facts which are