Judgements by CS Bijoy

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the premium on transfer fees of Rs. 10,60,000 received from members relying on the decision of the Mumbai High Court in the case of Sind Coop. Hsg. Soc

Ground nos.1 and 2 deal with the deletion of addition of ‘.49,99,680 on account of adjustment made to arm’s length price (ALP) in respect of international transaction with Associated Enterprise (AEs). Briefly stated the facts of these grounds are tha

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee firm is engaged in the business of export. The scrutiny assessments u/s 143(3) were completed for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 on 31.1.2005 and 14.9.2005 determining the total income

Firstly it is noticed that this ground arises very much from the order passed by the learned CIT(A). Secondly a letter dated 08.11.2007 addressed to the Registry, I.T.A.T, by Shri Pankaj Kumar, ACIT, Circle 1(1), Mumbai is there on record containing

The short issue in the present appeal by the assessee is with reference to addition of Rs.9,45,000/-, a gift received from the sister of the assessee brought to tax under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer was of the view that th

In the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Ld.CIT(APPEAL) erred in bifurcating the interest free advance of Rs. 2.43 crores granted to M/s. Tarajyot Polymers Pvt. Ltd. partly as business advance for the part of the year and partly as non-b

It was observed that certain advances were received by the assessee from the intending buyers in terms of agreement dated 30.01.1999 for providing electrical connection and fire fighting equipments. These advances were not considered to be receipts i

It was observed that the balance in the shares account is Rs.23,52,580/- whereas as per books of account and as per trial balance it is Rs.22,93,130/- and assessee has failed to explain the difference or substantiate his plea that there is no differe

When these facts were brought to the notice of the ld. counsel for the assessee, he fairly submitted that the second appeal could not have been filed against the same order when the first appeal had already been dismissed by the ld. CIT(Appeals). On

At the time of hearing, the learned AR submitted that the assessee company has not received assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 148 r/w section 143(3) for the assessment year 2002-03 as stated by the Assessing Officer that the order