Judgements by CS Bijoy

This case was listed for hearing before the Tribunal on 01-5-2012 and for this assessee was informed. Today i.e. on 01-5-2012 when the case was called on board, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any request for adjournment has been filed be

Brief facts of the instant case are that the assessee filed its return on 31.10.2002. On 28.3.2008 the Assessing Officer passed assessment order. Made disallowance u/s 10A of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) by partly all

Having regard to the facts stated above and keeping in view of the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the ITAT Rules as were considered by the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan (India) Ltd. reported in 38 ITR 320 (Del) and by the Hon’ble Madhya Prad

Facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return qua the assessment year on14.11.2006 declaring total income of Rs. 25,88,000/-. Also claimed dividend of Rs. 3,03,110/- as exempt from tax u/s 10(34) of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer

It is the say of the petitioner that they applied for a certified copy of the order on the same date, which was received on 12.11.2010 but filed the appeal on 31.1.2011. Thus, it is not in dispute that the appeal is barred by time and is even beyond

The brief facts of the case are that assessee during the year was engaged in the business of solar photo-voltaic wafers, cells, modules and systems etc. It has filed its return of income on 30th October, 2002 declaring loss of Rs.7,47,14,276. The cas

By an interim order dated 6th July, 2009 in the case of Canon India Pvt. Ltd., it was directed that there shall be stay of the impugned demand. The said interim order has continued. In fact, the writ petition filed by Canon India Private Limited was

The following are the brief facts which have given rise to the present petition. For the assessment years 2002-03 the petitioner filed a return of income in the status of a non-resident and declared property income and interest income therein. It wou

The facts are that during the assessment proceedings, the A.O. noted that the assessee claimed depreciation @ 4O% on the block of assets of life saving equipment which included on addition of Rs.55 lakhs. The assessee furnished two bills in respect o

“On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned CIT (A) erred in upholding the order passed by the learned Assessing Officer applying the provisions of section 50B of the Income tax Act to sale of assets of the M Seal Divisi