Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

On the facts and in the circumstances of the cazse and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals) has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.6,89,620/- u/s 271(1) (c) ignoring the facts that in the quantum proceeding the appellant has alrea

Brief facts of the case are that in the relevant assessment year, the assessee company was engaged in the business of Export of Readymade Garments. The assessee had filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs. 3,63,33,946/-. In the course

The brief facts of the case are that return of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. The assessee had declared income from house property, share of profit, remuneration from one firm and income from other sources. In this case AIR information was r

Vide this appeal, the assessee has raised its objections against denial of registration u/s 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. At the outset, the Ld. AR invited our attention to appellate order passed by ITAT, Delhi Bench-F in ITA No.1707 vide order da

That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in law and on the facts by allowing relief of Rs. 13,58,98,217/- by holding that the Transfer Pricing Officer’s (TPO) action of apportionment of Global Cricket Council contribution in the ratio of

That the learned Additional Director of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing Officer-II(2), New Delhi (Ld. TPO)/ Ld. AO have erred both in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs.3,97,10,488/- on account of alleged understatement of arm’s length price i

These appeals are preferred by the assessee against separate orders of CIT(A) in quantum assessment and penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relating to assessment year 2007-08. First we shall take ITA No. 843/Del/2011 against t

The assessee is a company and is engaged in the business of manufacture of fertilizers, chemicals, soya oil etc. It manufactures and sells single super phosphate, Sulphuric Acid in its three fertilizers unit situated at Nimrani (MP), Jhansi (UP) and

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law and on facts in deleting addition of Rs. 1,93,660/- on account of difference in cash deposit in bank account and cash sales, ignoring the cash deposits in bank account exceeded cash sales and the assessee

I have considered the submission of the appellant and gone through the balance sheet, trading and profit loss account and cash flow statement. The Assessing Officer has considered the business income to the extent of Rs.5,990/- on the basis of tradin