Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

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

In view thereof, the judgment and order in appeal in these cases is also set aside. The matters are remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration on the merits of the case. The appeals are allowed but there will be no order as to costs.

Having regard to Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules, 1963 and following various decisions of the Tribunal including in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del.) and the judgment of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case

The revenue has questioned the first appellate order on the following grounds: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.21,63,393/- being the amount receivable from M/s Adk

Assessee company in this case is engaged in the business of manufacturing, designing and fabrication of aluminum and architectural products. In this case it was noted that the assessee has shown ` 3,87,74,848/- as mobilization advance under the head