Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

That CIT(A) has erred in law in not appreciating that notice issued and served under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act is beyond the stipulated period and order passed in pursuance to such notice is without jurisdiction and bad in law.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Ld CIT(A) dated 4.10.2010. The grounds of assessee was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against enhancement.

That on the facts & circumstances of the case of the appellant the order of the Learned CIT(A) in disallowing deduction of Section 80HHC on total sale proceeds of DEPB instead of Profit as mentioned in Section 28(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is h

We have heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the material placed before us. The facts of the case are that both the assessees are minor children of Shri Kamal Piyush. During the accounting year relevant to the assessment year under consi

Ground Nos.1 to 4 of the assessee’s appeal are against the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has recorded that in this case, the original return furnished by the asse

The return of income was filed on 31.03.2008 declaring income at Rs.1,01,784/-. The assessment was finalized u/s 143(3) on 29.12.2009 by making an addition of Rs.12,84,516/- on account of bogus sundry creditors and Rs.48,540/- on account of concealed

Non presense of the appellant without taking adjournment.

The CIT(A) has erred on facts and in the law in cancelling the order dated 14.6.2011 passed by the ACIT (TDS), Noida and in directing that provisions contained in sec. 194C is applicable on the payment made by M/s Container Corporation of India Ltd.

We have heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the material placed before us. The penalty has been levied in respect of the two disallowances made by the Assessing Officer under Section 43B:- (i) Disallowance of interest amounting to `7

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in holding that the TPO was not justified in including other income with regard to computation of arm’s length price for royalty