Income Tax Judgements

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

Ground nos.1 and 2 deal with the deletion of addition of ‘.49,99,680 on account of adjustment made to arm’s length price (ALP) in respect of international transaction with Associated Enterprise (AEs). Briefly stated the facts of these grounds are tha

Brief facts of the issue are that while during the scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer observed that out of Rs.40,68,500/- received by the assessee towards share capital account, an amount of Rs.39,00,000/- relating to the share application mo

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee firm is engaged in the business of export. The scrutiny assessments u/s 143(3) were completed for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 on 31.1.2005 and 14.9.2005 determining the total income

Firstly it is noticed that this ground arises very much from the order passed by the learned CIT(A). Secondly a letter dated 08.11.2007 addressed to the Registry, I.T.A.T, by Shri Pankaj Kumar, ACIT, Circle 1(1), Mumbai is there on record containing

The short issue in the present appeal by the assessee is with reference to addition of Rs.9,45,000/-, a gift received from the sister of the assessee brought to tax under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer was of the view that th

In the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Ld.CIT(APPEAL) erred in bifurcating the interest free advance of Rs. 2.43 crores granted to M/s. Tarajyot Polymers Pvt. Ltd. partly as business advance for the part of the year and partly as non-b

The assessee is engaged in the business of trading in chemicals. The sales shown in the Profit & Loss Accounts were Rs. 3,15,85,478/- and against that purchases were shown as Rs. ,93,31,117/- on which gross profit of Rs. 7.95% was declared. The asse

The appeal by the Revenue was filed on 17.12.2008 and the appeal by the assessee was filed on 27.11.2008. The assessee is a public sector undertaking and, therefore, as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ONGC Vs CCE [1995] Suppl

These rather elaborate grounds of appeal attempt to highlight the factual matrix in which the assessee’s grievance is set out and the arguments in support of the assessee’s grievance. However, short grievance of the assessee, as is clearly discernibl