Judgements by Guest

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in holding that the TPO was not justified in including other income with regard to computation of arm’s length price for royalty

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company, in the relevant year, was engaged in manufacturing of motorized two wheelers and auto components/spare parts for auto industries. It had filed its return of income declaring loss of Rs. 37,11,83,

This is an assessee’s appeal. The following norms are raised at the outset. Learned counsel for the assessee contends that assessee is a civil contractor, regularly assessed tax. During this year 18 creditors having calculated outstanding amount of R

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 02.09.2011 of CIT-XIII, New Delhi pertaining to 2006-07 assessment year. At the time of hearing no one was present on behalf of the assessee as such the appeal was passed over. In the se

The appeal was originally fixed for hearing on 10.9.2012 on which date assessee’s counsel took date and the case was adjourned to 17.1.2013. On 17.1.2013, again counsel of the assessee took adjournment and case was fixed for 22.5.2013 i.e. today. Nob

The appeal was originally fixed for hearing on 10.9.2012 on which date assessee’s counsel took date and the case was adjourned to 17.1.2013. On 17.1.2013, again counsel of the assessee took adjournment and case was fixed for 22.5.2013 i.e. today. Nob

In this case the assessee is a Company and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of building materials. During the course of assessment Assessing Officer observed that it was noted from the details of commission on sales that there

The appellant is engaged in export of handicraft and shawl etc. and local sale of software. The assessee has income from business, capital gains and income from other sources during the AY 2008-09 and the same sources of income as were in earlier yea

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 45,00,000/- being unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961

of DCIT, Circle 1(1), New Delhi in treating a sum of Rs. 36,00,000/- representing income from joint venture with M/s Auto Link (I) Pvt. Ltd., as “income from other sources” as against “Business income” declared by the appellant.