Judgements by CS Bijoy

The notice was given to assessee fixing the date of hearing on 01.08.2012 through notice board. But no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. Nor there is any application for adjournment. In view of above, it appears that assessee is not interested

During the assessment proceeding the AO found that the assessee had shown dividend income of Rs.5,60,809/- which was claimed as exempt. AO found that the assessee had not allocated any expenditure incurred by him towards earning of the tax-exempt-div

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of Thermoplastic material and Phenolic Moulding Powers etc. For the year under consideration, return of income was filed on 31.10.2004 declaring total

By this miscellaneous application, the assessee is seeking recall of the order of the Tribunal dated 13-12-2010 passed ex-party in ITA No. 771/Mum/2009 on the ground that there was a miss-communication about the date of hearing by the articled clerk

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee under the head “interest and other charges” had debited an amount of `.2056.50 lakhs on account of “guarantee & other charges”. During the assessment proceedings from the perusal of these details, the

Brief facts are: The assessee is engaged in the manufacturing of hardware made of brass such as electric switch cover, door handles and lock handles etc. Prior to this year the assessee was into exports of these goods to U.S. market. During the year

That the Revenue has erred in law and on facts in adding the amount of ` `3,667/- which pertains to the difference in closing balance of amount receivable from M/s Heritage Resorts Pvt. Ltd. as per their books and as per our books of Accounts. Th

A search and seizure operation was carried out on 5.10.2007 in the business and residential premises of Choksey group of businesses. Since the assessee had business connections with the group, his business and residential premises were also searched

From the case observe the following fact... The learned CIT (Appeals), erred in confirming the finding of the Assessing Officer in not considering the gains on the sale of shares of Rs. 4,89,18,734/- as long term capital gains and thereby also con

At the time of hearing, none has put in appearance on behalf of the assessee. Also, no adjournment application is on the record. Keeping in view these facts, we are of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeal. Therefo