Judgements by CS Bijoy

The brief facts of this issue are that while doing the scrutiny assessment Assessing Officer has added an amount of Rs.23,49,260/- by observing that: “During the course of survey, a compact disc containing books of a/cs. were impounded. The print

From the observation we came to know that only claiming fact is not enough to appreciate the appropriate authority to accept the contention and decide in favor of the appellant, the appellant must give proper supporting evidence.

The brief facts of the above issue are that it was found by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has allowed M/s. Hutchison Max Telecom Ltd. to erect the tower on their terrace in consideration of an amount of ` 5,93,700 and claimed as income from

The brief facts leading up to the filing of the present appeals may be noticed. M/s. Harsh International Pvt. Ltd., one of the appellant, herein, is a company engaged in the manufacture of chewing tobacco. It was registered under the Central Excise L

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 30.10.2002, inter alia claiming the deduction u/s.80HHC. The return was proceeded u/s.143(1)(a). There was no regular assessment under the provisions of the Act

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the show cause notice dated 02.02.2010 pertaining to the assessment year 2003-2004 primarily on the ground that the said show cause notice is barred by time. By virtue of the said show cause

The petitioner had filed return of income for the assessment year in question under Section 139(4) of the Act on 6th October, 2010. The contention of the petitioner is that the Assessing Officer could have initiated scrutiny assessment proceedings by

The factual matrix of the case is that the assessee-company is engaged in the business of licensing, manufacturing, distribution and selling of diamonds under the brand “Nakshatra”. In the course of scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted t

In paragraph 2 of the judgment, it was pointed out by this Court that the learned counsel for the assessee/appellant confined his grievance only to disallowance of payment of `2,00,000/- made to one Mr. Sunil Kumar. This issue has been considered and

In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO tog grant exemption u/s. 11 of the I.T Act to the assessee trust when the order dt. 31.12.2008 u/s. 12AA(3) of the Act has been appealed before the