Judgements by CS Bijoy

I have considered the facts of the case and the submissions of the appellant. I have also perused the case laws as relied upon by the appellant. Before considering the appellant’s submission, it is important to look about the operative part of the di

Vide a penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) dated 27-03-2009, it was held that the assessee has concealed the income of Rs.8,16,617/- which was taxed on account of estimation of profit. The First Appellate Authority has expressed that since the addition was i

Briefly stated the assessee is a Partner in the firm M/s Balachandra Laboratories. The firm had property at Thane on which development rights were transferred to M/s Friends Development Corporation (FDC) for an amount of Rs.17.00 crores. The said fir

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business as builders, building contractors, labour contractors, property developers etc. The return was filed declaring total income at Rs.4,71,330/- on 30.10.2006, whic

The facts, in brief, are that the assessee who is a Joint Managing Director in M/s Ashapura Shipping Ltd. had received a gift of Rs. 55,00,000/- from Mr. Nilesh shah during the year under consideration. On being asked by the AO to furnish the detail

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual carrying on business of civil constructions and commission on sale of flats and miscellaneous income. She filed return declaring a total income of Rs.2,02,357/-. However, the ass

The Revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeal. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XV, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty of Rs.1,27,80,657/- levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. On the facts and

That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT has gravely erred in law and on facts in rejecting the appellant’s application u/s 12A(1) without appreciating the fact that the appellant society was granted exemption from Income-tax

Transportation fee being erroneously treated as fees for technical services under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-11 has erred in uphol

Brief facts are that during the relevant financial year 2000-01, assessee purchased incomplete flat in a multi-storied building situated at Juhu Sai Darshan, 5th N.S. Ext. Road, JVPD Scheme, Mumbai-400 049 for a total consideration of Rs.64.65 lakhs