Income Tax Judgements

Before we part with this order, it may be mentioned that according to the provisions of sub-section (3) to Section 12AA, even after grant of registration, if the Commissioner is satisfied that the activities of such trust or institution are not genui

The facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in establishing, developing and running hotels, holidays and health resorts. During the year under consideration, it had incurred expenditure on account of horticulture to the tune of Rs.

I have considered the facts of the case and the submissions of the appellant. I have also perused the case laws as relied upon by the appellant. Before considering the appellant’s submission, it is important to look about the operative part of the di

Vide a penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) dated 27-03-2009, it was held that the assessee has concealed the income of Rs.8,16,617/- which was taxed on account of estimation of profit. The First Appellate Authority has expressed that since the addition was i

Briefly stated the assessee is a Partner in the firm M/s Balachandra Laboratories. The firm had property at Thane on which development rights were transferred to M/s Friends Development Corporation (FDC) for an amount of Rs.17.00 crores. The said fir

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business as builders, building contractors, labour contractors, property developers etc. The return was filed declaring total income at Rs.4,71,330/- on 30.10.2006, whic

The facts, in brief, are that the assessee who is a Joint Managing Director in M/s Ashapura Shipping Ltd. had received a gift of Rs. 55,00,000/- from Mr. Nilesh shah during the year under consideration. On being asked by the AO to furnish the detail

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual carrying on business of civil constructions and commission on sale of flats and miscellaneous income. She filed return declaring a total income of Rs.2,02,357/-. However, the ass

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of``3,11,85,809/- on account of disallowance of loss on trading of shares as not an allowable expenditure u/s 37(1) in view of violation of clause 11 me

The facts in the case before Hon’ble High Court (supra) are identical to the facts in hand because the assessment order was passed by the AO as per the discussion with CIT and as per the office note dt. 28/12/2006 then the subsequent CIT cannot revis