Judgements by Poojitha Raam Vinay

The only grievance of the assessee in aforesaid appeals for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16 & 2016-17 is disallowance u/s 14A. The facts are pari-materia the same in both the years and therefore, the appeals were heard together and are now being dispose

This appeal by the revenue is against order of learned CIT(A)-40, Mumbai dated 23/10/2019.

The above titled cross appeals have been preferred by the assessee as well as by Revenue against the order dated 20.11.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax.

This appeal is filed by the ld. ACIT, Central Circle 27, New Delhi, raising the solitary ground of appeal that the ld.CIT (Appeals) has deleted the addition made by the ld. AO of Rs. 9,76,41,006/- under Section 68 of the Income TaxAct, 1961 (the Act)

This appeal is filed by the ld. ACIT, Circle 5 (1), New Delhi, against the order passed by the ld. CIT (Appeals)�38, New Delhi, dated 18.09.2017 wherein the ld.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 31.01.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-23, New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2011-12.

The appeals filed by the respective assessees are directed against the orders passed by Ld. CIT(A)-11, Bengaluru in their respective hands and they relate to the assessment years mentioned in the caption.

Assessee is in appeal against order of the ld.CIT(A)-3, Ahmedabad dated 31.12.2018 passed under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Whether in the facts of the case, the provision of specified medical instruments by the applicant to unrelated parties like hospitals, lab etc for use without any consideration constitutes a "supply" or whether it constitutes "movement of goods".

Whether the answer given for the first question to VRINDHAVAN project is also applicable to the other similar projects in similar situations.