Judgements by CS Bijoy

However at the time of hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessee. The appeal was passed over twice. Despite the same, neither the assessee was present nor any request for adjournment has been placed before the Bench. The record shows that

Brief facts of the case are that assessee was running a proprietary business as whole seller at Nainital. It had filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs. 1,90,000/-. The Assessing Officer, vide order sheet entry dated 19th August, 200

The assessee has raised various grounds in its appeal. However, at the time of hearing before us, the main contention of the learned counsel for the assessee was for setting aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A). He subm

On the facts and circumstances of the case the ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,26,248/- made on account of jewellery by ignoring that no investment in jewellery was disclosed and no wealth tax return was filed. On the facts and c

However, at the time of hearing before us, it was pointed out by the learned counsel that the learned CIT(A) had allowed only part relief and, therefore, against the addition sustained at `3,45,914/-, the assessee had filed appeal before the ITAT. Th

We draw the attention of the ld. DR regarding the tax effect on the deletion of addition of Rs.9,05,643/- which is less than Rs. 3.00 lakh. This position is admitted by the ld. D.R. Therefore, as per the Instruction No. 3/2011 dated 09.02.2011 the re

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the addition of Rs.4,070302/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of car maintenance expenses.”

The appeal was fixed for hearing on 21.11.2011 when the case was adjourned at the request of the assessee’s counsel to 22.03.2012. Thereafter, the Bench did not function and the hearing was fixed on 25.07.2012. On 25.07.2012, the matter was adjourned

At the time of hearing before us, the learned counsel for the assessee argued at length. He stated that there was search at Chaurasia Group of cases. However, there was no search operation at the premises of the assessee company. The Assessing Office

The facts necessary for the purpose of appreciating the controversy involved in the appeal are as follows: The Bangalore Club (hereinafter referred to as the “assessee”), the appellant herein, is an unincorporated Association of Persons, (AOP). I