Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company which filed return on 22.10.2003 and the return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 12.1.2004. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 and notice 148 of the Act was issued to the

Facts: The department has filed this appeal for assessment year 2007-08 against order dated 2.11.2010 of ld CIT(A)-1, Mumbai. None appeared on behalf of assessee in spite of notice served through ld D.R. as per the report of the Assessing Officer dat

Assessee was informed that matter will be heard on 17.09.2012. But, no one appeared on behalf of assessee. Nor there is any application for adjournment. In view of above, it appears that assessee is not interested in prosecuting this appeal. Hence th

The grounds raised read as under:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) is bad both in the eye of law and on facts. 2(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Comm

The grounds raised read as under:- “1. Whether the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) was correct on facts and circumstances of the case and in law in deleting the disallowance of ` 8,76,435/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of advertise

The facts at the assessment stage show that the assessee declared total loss of Rs. 1,96,610/- for the year under consideration. The assessee has also claimed exemption u/s. 10A of the Act at Rs. 96,02,867/-. The returned income was assessed at a los

Facts, in brief, as relevant orders are that e-return declaring income of `1,50,37,034/- filed on 30th November, 2008 by the assessee, providing management services for large buildings, hospitals, factories etc., was selected for scrutiny with the se

The facts concerning the only issue in dispute are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of pneumatic conveying systems. The company is located at Ambarnath, beyond Kalyan wherein there is frequent power failures making it impossible t

Notice of hearing was duly served upon the assessee vide RPAD on record along with the memo of defect. As the Bench did not function, the case was adjourned to 25.6.2012 and thereafter to 4.9.2012 for which both the parties were informed through noti

On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) has erred in upholding the disallowance of `.2,073,610/-, being 25% of the dividend income, made by the AO under section 14A of the Act, without establishing any real nexus