Income Tax Judgements

We have heard both sides. The CBDT, vide above instruction has clearly laid down that the revenue should not prefer appeals against assessees before ITAT if the tax effect involved in the appeal, excluding interest, is less than Rs. 3 lacs. The tax p

The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as “CIT (A)”] erred in passing the order dated 22.03.2010 upholding the order of the Ld. AO without affording the Appellant proper opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the order

The ld. Commissioner of Income — tax (Appeals), ! XXXIII, Mumbai [“ld. CIT (A)”], erred in not adjudicating the ground raised by the Appellant challenging the action of the Assessing Officer [“A.O.”] in reassessing the income of the Appellant by invo

Facts in brief as emerged from the corresponding assessment order passed u/s.143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 31/01/2006 and the penalty order passed u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961 dated 31/03/2008 were that the addition in respect of write off

After hearing the rival submissions and on careful perusal of materials available on record keeping in view of the fact that since the assessment year involved in this appeal is relating to A.Yr. 2004-05 as per the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High

The short issue involved in these appeals is: whether common expenses incurred by an assessee can be allocated towards taxable and non-taxable income under the provisions of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the „I.T

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of Trading in Electric Motors, Fans, Laboratory equipments and generation of Wind Power filed return declaring total income at Rs.11,60,151/-. During the course

When the matter was called on for hearing, nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee nor was any application for adjournment filed. From the acknowledgement-cum-notice, it is transpired that the assessee’s representative has noted the date of hearing

Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271D for the assessment year 2004-05 in respect of M/s. J.A. Land & Housing Dev. India Limited and also in assessment years 2005-06 & 2006-07, as well as under section 271E of the Income Tax Act for the

Facts in brief are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has claimed deduction of Rs.64,41,673 on account of loss being exchange difference on refund of customer’s advance. It was also notic