Judgements by Guest

In brief the facts are that in this case return of income was filed by the assessee declaring a loss of Rs. 19,906/-. The assessment was completed by the A.O. u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act at an income of Rs. 12,42,412/- by making following disallowance

This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax(A)-III, New Delhi dated 1.11.2012 in Appeal No. 619/11-12/C.I.T.(A)-III for AY 2005-06

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VII, New Delhi dated 24.6.2011 pertaining to assessment year 2008-09

A brief analysis of the study depicts that though the assessee was proceeded ex-parte, the learned CIT(A) has not decided the matter on merits.

The assessee is in appeal against the order dated 16.09.2009 passed by the ld. CIT(A) in the matter of an assessment made by the AO u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (“the Act”) for the A.Y. 2004-05.

It is very unfortunate litigation between the husband/petitioner and wife/respondent who are Advocates of the Supreme Court and of this Court. They got married on 25th January, 1996. However, in the year 2004, the husband, who is the petitioner herei

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee company is a financial company under the Interest Tax Act, 1974, liable to tax there under and if yes, then which portion of the income/receipts of the assessee company can be co

It was fairly conceded by the Ld.AR of the assessee that the issue involved is covered against the assessee by the decision of the special bench of the Tribunal rendered in the case of ACIT vs. Hindustan Mint & Agro Products Pvt. Ltd., as reported in

In all these three appeals by the assessee, the only ground raised is about the chargeability of Fringe Benefit Tax (FBT) on channel placement charges. The amount of channel placement charges paid by the assessee in the years under appeal is as under

Ld. Counsel for the assessee contends that assessee’s assessment in question was framed u/s 143(3) making various additions alleging that assessee could not file necessary evidence ignoring the fact that sufficient time was not given to the assessee.