Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

of DCIT, Circle 1(1), New Delhi in treating a sum of Rs. 36,00,000/- representing income from joint venture with M/s Auto Link (I) Pvt. Ltd., as “income from other sources” as against “Business income” declared by the appellant.

That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not giving full benefit of expenditure as claimed by the assessee and has further erred in directing to ld.AO to allow the expenditure only to th

The spinal issue that has spiralled to this Court is whether the Company Judge under the Companies Act, 1956 (for short “the 1956 Act”) has jurisdiction at the instance of the Official Liquidator to set aside the auction or sale held by the Recovery

The present appeal under Section 15Z of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (“the SEBI Act”) is directed against the impugned judgment and final order dated 9th November, 2011 passed by the Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (“the

The relevant facts of the case are that in the year under consideration the assessee who is wholly owned subsidiary of Honeywell International Inc. Returned ncome of Rs.15,63,19,080/- by way of filing return on 30th November, 2006. The assessee compa

The issue of cash purchases was also examined in the preceding years. While during the course of the assessment proceedings for the assessee had categorically submitted that the raw materials i.e carcass had been purchased through agents, as also the

Non-deduction of tax source u/s 192 of the Act in respect of non-inclusion of performance incentive for the purposes of calculating exemption u/s 10(13A) of the Act; and (ii) Non deduction of TDS u/s 194J from the payment made for the use of telecomm

We draw the attention of the ld. DR regarding the tax effect on the deletion of addition of Rs.9,05,643/- which is less than Rs. 3.00 lakh. This position is admitted by the ld. D.R. Therefore, as per the Instruction No. 3/2011 dated 09.02.2011 the re

At the time of hearing before us, it was stated by the learned counsel that the DIT(Exemptions), vide his order dated 29th September, 2010, refused to register the trust. However, subsequently, the same DIT(Exemptions), vide order dated 6th April, 20

At the time of hearing before us, it was stated by the learned counsel that in both the years, despite huge additions, the assessed income is loss. That the set off of this loss has never been claimed in the subsequent years because in the subsequent