Judgements by CS Bijoy

The appellant has raised following grounds of appeal:- (1) “The learned CIT(A) has grossly erred on the facts of the case and in law upholding disallowance of actual incurred expenditure of Rs.3,20,514/- being the management fee paid to ICICI Prud

This case was listed for hearing before the Tribunal on 15-10-2012 and for this assessee was informed. Today i.e. on 15-10-2012 when the case was called on board, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any request for adjournment has been filed

The facts as per the relevant orders are that a search was conducted on the assessee on 15.01.2009, together with searches in the Gopal Zarda group of cases. The assessee individual is a partner in certain firms and has, during the year, derived inco

The present case is identical and similar to the issue decided by COD’s and the amendment made through the Finance Act, 2007 wherein it has been provided that tax shall not be deducted on payments of commission or brokerage payable by Bharat Sanchar

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing depreciation on certain fixed assets, particularly when full cost of such assets stood allowed in earlier years as application of income and further allowance by way

The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law, on facts and circumstances of the case in assuming jurisdiction for giving direction for disallowing expenditure in the year which was not before him such directions are beyond the scope of statutory powers of CIT

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 3.08.2010 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XIX, New Delhi pertainng to the Assessment Year 2003-04 on various grounds. However, at the time of hearing the assessee filed an a

The relevant facts borne out from the assessment order are that as against the returned income of Rs.89,130/- the income was assessed at Rs.6,18,135/- wherein the Assessing Officer made additions on account of undisclosed capital gain; unexplained ag

These appeals have raised the question about the procedure that is being followed by Calcutta High Court in consideration of the applications under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ‘1996 Act’). When the special

After analysing the facts of this case, considering the submissions made by the learned Advocates for the parties and the materials placed before us, we cannot brush aside the fact that the assessee ompany is a well known and reputed Chartered Accoun