Judgements by CS Bijoy

In his appeal, as many as twelve grounds are raised by the assessee. However, at the time of hearing before us, it is stated by the learned counsel that the major dispute in this appeal is with regard to the addition made under Section 68 of the Inco

Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in deleting the disallowances of Rs.707376/- made by the A.O. on account of discount of sale ignoring the fact that said discount

Ground of appeal relates to the grievance of the appellant against the action of the Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs.1,12,53,000/- on account of warranty and other expenses. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that, the identica

The fact of the case pointed in the following points: FOR THAT the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Jalpaiguri acted unlawfully in upholding the assessment order framed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Ld. Income Tax Officer,

In allowing credit of MAT of the previous year u/s 115JAA at `.56,05,585/-. (Pl. see Sl. No.22 of Intimation) only as against the sum of `.63,51,128/- paid as per Schedule Part B of TTI of ITR 6 of previous year resulting in not allowing the credit o

Facts indicate that the assessee is a partnership firm of two partners and doing the business of export of hardware items. The assessee purchases raw material and after assembling and doing the job work, the same are exported to foreign countries and

Facts indicate that the assessee is a company incorporated in Australia. It was engaged in the business of providing equipment on hiring and manpower etc. for exploration and production of mineral oil and natural gas. During the year under appeal. th

It appears that the assessee is not interested in getting the appeal prosecuted. Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Tukojirao Holkar Vs CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP), while dismissing the reference made at the instance of the assessee in default

Having regard to Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules, 1963 and following various decisions of the Tribunal including in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del.) and the judgment of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case

Facts, in brief, as per the relevant orders are that return declaring income of `1,92,16,940/- filed on 29-09-2009 by the assessee, providing consultancy of automotive components, was selected for scrutiny with the service of notice u/s 143(2) of the