Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the addition of Rs.4,070302/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of car maintenance expenses.”

The appeal was fixed for hearing on 21.11.2011 when the case was adjourned at the request of the assessee’s counsel to 22.03.2012. Thereafter, the Bench did not function and the hearing was fixed on 25.07.2012. On 25.07.2012, the matter was adjourned

At the time of hearing before us, the learned counsel for the assessee argued at length. He stated that there was search at Chaurasia Group of cases. However, there was no search operation at the premises of the assessee company. The Assessing Office

The facts necessary for the purpose of appreciating the controversy involved in the appeal are as follows: The Bangalore Club (hereinafter referred to as the “assessee”), the appellant herein, is an unincorporated Association of Persons, (AOP). I

The respondent-assessee is a firm which came into existence on 25th June, 1992. On 23rd February, 1996, a search operation under Section 132 of the Act was carried out at the premises of another concern, viz. M/s A.R. Mercantile Private Limited. Duri

The assessee is a public limited company, classified by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) as a non-banking finance company. It is engaged in the business of hire purchase, leasing and real estate etc. The vehicles, on which depreciation was claimed, ar

The appellant, an Export Oriented Unit (for short “EOU”), is engaged in the manufacture of all wool and poly-wool worsted grey fabrics. It was granted the status of EOU by the Government of India, Ministry of Industry, Department of Industrial Develo

The facts very briefly are that the appellant-bank sanctioned Derivatives/Forward Contracts facility to respondent no.1 upto a limit of Rs.2,00,00,000/- (rupees two crores) only for the purpose of hedging foreign currency exposures by its letter date

Briefly stated, the material facts giving rise to the appeal, are as follows: Pursuant to an inspection by the officials of the enforcement Commissionerate, Chennai-II at the sales outlet of the respondent (hereinafter referred as “the assessee”), re

The facts: The assessee, being the owner of 6000 fully paid up equity shares executed a deed of revocable transfer in favour of M/s Yogesh Chandra and Brothers Associates Under the deed, the assessee could, on completion of 74 months from the dat