Income Tax Judgements

On this issue assessee contended in the ground that the Assessing Officer has erred in reopening the assessment mainly to disallow under section 14A of the Income Tax Act and took shelter under section 36(1)(iii) to avoid provisions of Section 14A wh

As regards first issue, Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.2,20,000 on account of accrued interest by IVP’s. The Assessing Officer has held that investment in the asset was the income of the assessee and therefore, interest income accrued thereon

We have heard the learned D.R. in this regard and carefully perused the record. Having regard to the circumstances of the case we are of the view that the balance of convenience is in granting conditional stay. As declared in the open court, assessee

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of PVC sheets, Leathercloth, Flooring Materials and Trading in commodity, filed return declaring loss of Rs.4,79,89,263/-. During the course of

The facts in brief are that the assessee is an AOP, engaged in the business of trading in dyes and chemicals and derive income therefrom filed return of income declaring an income of Rs. 9,39,492/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO

The Revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeal. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XV, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty of Rs.1,27,80,657/- levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. On the facts and

That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT has gravely erred in law and on facts in rejecting the appellant’s application u/s 12A(1) without appreciating the fact that the appellant society was granted exemption from Income-tax

Transportation fee being erroneously treated as fees for technical services under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-11 has erred in uphol

Brief facts are that during the relevant financial year 2000-01, assessee purchased incomplete flat in a multi-storied building situated at Juhu Sai Darshan, 5th N.S. Ext. Road, JVPD Scheme, Mumbai-400 049 for a total consideration of Rs.64.65 lakhs

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the premium on transfer fees of Rs. 10,60,000 received from members relying on the decision of the Mumbai High Court in the case of Sind Coop. Hsg. Soc