Income Tax Judgements

Facts of the case in brief are that the A.O. noted that the assessee has received Sales Tax incentive of Rs. 12,94,109/- in respect of Unit I and Sales Tax incentive of Rs. 84687/- in respect of Unit II on which deduction u/s 80IB has been claimed. A

The grounds of appeal raised by assessee read as under :- “1. For that the order of assessment as well as order of appeal is bad in law and should quashed. 2. For that the written submission filed in appeal was not considered. 3. For that the re

That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. C.I.T.(A) has erred in law in accepting fresh evidences filed by the assessee without calling for remand report from the AO, which is in contravention of the provision of Rule 46.” Same common

ITA No. 3871/Mum/2008 filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 8.2.2008 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (A)- XXII, Mumbai relating to Assessment Year 2004-05. ITA No. 87/Mum/2010 filed by the assessee is directed against the order

In appeal for the assessment year 2001-02, the Revenue assails deletion of additions of Rs.3,60,000/- and Rs.1,56,388/- made by the ld. CIT(A). During the course of hearing, it was admitted by the ld. DR that the tax effect in this case was less than

Facts of the case in brief are that the A.O. during the course of assessment proceedings noted that the assessee has earned exempt dividend income of Rs. 4,63,50,000/- on investments made. He noted that the assessee has borrowed interest bearing fun

This appeal by assessee is arising out of order of CIT(A), Durgapur in Appeal No.75 / CIT(A)/DGP/2009-10 dated 28.02.2011. Assessment was framed by ITO, Ward-1(3), Durgapur u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”

The facts are that the assessee filed his return on 30.07.2007 declaring total income of Rs. 3,81,368/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) at the returned income. Thereafter, the case was taken up for scrutiny. The assessee has derived salary incom

The appeal was filed on 08.12.2010 when an acknowledgement cum- notice was served on the bearer under which the appeal was fixed for hearing on 10.02.2011. None attended on that date. Thereafter, another notice dated 07.10.2011 was served on the asse

Brief facts of this issue are that during the year, the company has written off unsecured loans to the tune of Rs.52.75 lakhs and it is mentioned in the schedule-L i.e., notes forming part of accounts that there was no claim from the loan creditors a