Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

Adverting first to ground no.1 in the appeal, facts, in brief, as per relevant orders are that return declaring income of ``4,18,02,660/- filed on 31.03.2006 by the assessee, a real estate company, after being processed u/s 143(1) of the Income–tax A

Brief facts are the assessee is engaged in business of manufacturing and trading of perfumery compounds, aromatic chemicals & other oils. Survey operations were carried out in the case of M/s. Surya Vinayak Industries Ltd. (SVIL) and associated conce

It would be relevant to recount the facts of the case in brief. The assessee’s return of income for the year, filed on 30-11-2006 at a loss of Rs.226.07 lakhs, was selected for scrutiny, serving notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. There being no response

Brief facts are: Survey proceedings u/s 133Awere conducted by Income-tax department on 29-1-2004 in the office premises of Executive Engineer, Civil Construction Division-II, Dhalipur, Dehradun. It was found that vide Hon’ble Supreme Court order, ass

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 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) vide order dated 09.10.2009,determining income of ``4,45,81,010/- , in pursuance to ret

This only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of interest expenditure by invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act read with Rule 83(2)(ii) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in allowing relief of Rs.12,23,979/- on account of allowable expenses under Section 40(a)(ia) ignoring the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

The brief facts of the case are that vide assessment order dated 29.12.2009, passed u/s 143 (3) of the IT Act, the income of the assessee was assessed at nil after adjusting brought forward losses. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had

Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this appeal are that the Draft Order u/s 144C of the Act dated 17.12.2009 was passed and served on the assessee. The assessee filed objection u/s 144C(2)(b) of the Act on 19.1.2010 before DRP-II against the sam

This case was listed for hearing before the Tribunal on 28-8-2012 and for this assessee was informed. Today i.e. on 28-8-2012 when the case was called on board, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any request for adjournment has been filed be