Judgements by CS Bijoy

In this case return of income declaring total income of ` 108107/- was filed on 31.10.1993 after claiming deduction of ` 3,08,43,785/- u/s. 80HHC of the Act. Original assessment in this case was completed u/s. 143(3) on 29.3.1996. At the time of orig

the Assessing Officer (‘A.O.’)/Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’) has erred in making an addition of Rs.34,780,481/- to the total income of the Appellant on account of adjustment in the arm’s length price of the international transaction pertaining to

The AO called the assessee to explain why the above claim of unsecured loan from the above three persons shall be treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. In response to show cause notice, the assessee submitted details of cheque nos. by

Against ex parte dismissal of appeal: a) For that on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appellant’s appeal for alleged non-pursuing of the appeal. b) For that on the facts and circumstance

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in deleting the addition of ` 1001500/- made u/s. 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 especially when the identity and credit worthiness of the share applicants an

The brief facts of the above case are that while doing the scrutiny assessment the AO has added an amount of Rs.65,96,859/- under the head ‘unexplained loan creditors’ and Rs.2,44,256/- under the head interest paid on the above loan creditors by obse

Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee filed a return declaring an income of Rs.53,46,390 for AY 2003-04 which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and accordingly a

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in deleting the addition of ` 15,12,750/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investment on construction/ renovation of 1st floor

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of maintenance expenses amounting to `7886/- and Depr

That the Learned Assessing Officer has wrongly applied the valuation of Residential House as made by District Valuation Officer which is based on material rates prescribed by CPWD. With a contractors margin of 10% on supplying / fixing/ providing of