Judgements by CS Bijoy

This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT (A)- IV, New Delhi, dated 17.02.2012, relevant to assessment year 2008-09, whereby confirmation of addition of Rs.2,56,019/- on account of estimated expenditure u/s 14A of th

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.9,96,50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 being the unexplained share capital and share premium of Rs.1,0

From the judgment it is cleared that the assessee is not interested in the prosecution of this appeal. Considering the facts and keeping in view the provisions of Rule 19 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, as were considered in the cases of

None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the appeal was called for hearing nor any request for adjournment was filed. Even before the Assessing Officer[AO in short], none appeared while last notice dated 9.12.2010 issued u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of th

Opinion amongst different benches of the Tribunal in respect of scope of assessment framed u/s 153A, i.e. whether addition can be made on items in respect of which no incriminating material is found in search. The decisions in favour and against of t

The relevant facts for adjudication of ground No.1 are that the assessee is a charitable institution engaged in carrying out religious and charitable activities within the ambit of section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act. These charitable activities have

The brief facts in apropos these grounds are that the assessee, Boskalis Dredging India P.Ltd, is a company incorporated in India on 5th January,1996. It is engaged in the business of undertaking inter alia capital and maintenance dredging projects a

Section 80HHC- Deduction in respect of profits retained for export business.— xxx (3) For the purposes of sub-section (1),-- (a) where the export out of India is of goods or merchandise manufactured or processed by the assessee, the profits deriv

Company Petition No.95 of 2004 was a petition under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) vide which sanction of this Court to the scheme of Amalgamation of Indrama Investment Private Limited (transfer

The observation of the case is giving rise to the aforesaid substantial question of law are these. The assessee is a partnership firm consisting of two partners namely Manoj Gupta and his wife Shallu Gupta. It filed a return of income on 02.12.2003