Judgements by Ayush

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

ITA No. 3871/Mum/2008 filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 8.2.2008 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (A)- XXII, Mumbai relating to Assessment Year 2004-05. ITA No. 87/Mum/2010 filed by the assessee is directed against the order

In appeal for the assessment year 2001-02, the Revenue assails deletion of additions of Rs.3,60,000/- and Rs.1,56,388/- made by the ld. CIT(A). During the course of hearing, it was admitted by the ld. DR that the tax effect in this case was less than

Facts of the case in brief are that the A.O. during the course of assessment proceedings noted that the assessee has earned exempt dividend income of Rs. 4,63,50,000/- on investments made. He noted that the assessee has borrowed interest bearing fun