Judgements by Ayush

First issue which is common in both the appeals relates to addition made under sec. 14A of the Act. The facts of the case stated in brief are that the assessee is a company engaged in chain of Chinese food restaurants. During the year under considera

The relevant facts of the case are that the assessee is a company incorporated in Thailand and was engaged in the business of providing digital broadcast service through its transponders to its customers including Indian residents. For the years unde

Facts, in brief, as per relevant orders are that assessment in this case was completed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as the Act) vide order dated 30.12.2004, determining income of ``28,28,40,870/-.Subsequently, after r

The petitioner is a private limited company. In respect of the assessment year 2004-05 it filed a return of income on 27.10.2004 and the same was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act on 31.12.2004. Thereafter, on 28.3.2011 the respondent issued

Respectfully submits that pursuant to the order of Ld. CIT, the assessment order has been passed by the Ld. AO and Ld. AO did not make any addition in the assessment order. Copy of assessment order is enclosed herewith. Hence the present appeal remai

The facts leading up to the levy of penalty may be noticed in brief. The assessee is a domestic company. In respect of the year under appeal, it filed a return of income on 27th November, 2000 declaring income of Rs.1,43,40,680/-. The return was firs

According to the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, for getting registration of a trade mark, an application is required to be filed in accordance with the provisions incorporated in the said Act. Such an application is required to be advertised and

Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271D for the assessment year 2004-05 in respect of M/s. J.A. Land & Housing Dev. India Limited and also in assessment years 2005-06 & 2006-07, as well as under section 271E of the Income Tax Act for the

Brief facts of the case are that in the relevant assessment year, the assessee-firm derived income from business of civil construction. The assessee had filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs.68,970/-. The Assessing Officer noticed f

That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. C.I.T.(A) has erred in law in accepting fresh evidences filed by the assessee without calling for remand report from the AO, which is in contravention of the provision of Rule 46.” Same common