Judgements by Ayush

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in quashing the assessment despite the specific saver provided under the Act by way of section 292BB because section 292BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pro

The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law in treating `35,49,091/- as revenue receipt being the amount received from the flat owners and / or tenants for replacement of capital assets and shown as sinking fund in accounts which was co

The assessee is a company engaged in the business of syndication of loans, placement of bond and other financial instruments. The assessee received dividend income of Rs. 21,09,430/-, which did not form part of the total income under the Act. In view

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee an individual derives income from salary, business income and other sources. The assessee’s business premises as well as residential premises were searched u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (th

DEDUCTION U/S 80-O:- the assessee was requested to prove their claim for deduction u/s. 80-O with documentary evidences in their favour. The assessee vide letter dt. 11.03.2002 has submitted as under (as extracted):- M/s Galana, Madagascar had app

From the observation we can find the following fact.. The assessee is a company engaged in management consultancy, implementation of internal controls, system audits, arranging finance from financial institutions and financing and advisory services

That being so and in view of the recent CBDT Instruction No. 3 of 2011 dated 9th February, 2011 reported in (2011) 332 ITR 1 (Statutes) and the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Madhukar K. Inamdar (

Out of the 05 (Five) Grounds of Appeal filed by the appellant against the order of the CIT(A) dt. 01-12-2010, the following 03 (Three) Grounds of Appeal are effective. They are: “The learned CIT(A) 21 erred in upholding the adding back to the tota

The present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) is directed against the Award dated 25th January 2006 passed by the learned Arbitrator (‘Respondent No.2’) holding that the claims of the Petitioner in respect

The Companies (Amendment) Ordinance, 1998 (No.19 of 1998) sub-section (5) of Section 205A of the Companies Act (hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟), 1956 was amended as regards transfer of unpaid dividend account of a company to the fund establishe