Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

In allowing credit of MAT of the previous year u/s 115JAA at `.56,05,585/-. (Pl. see Sl. No.22 of Intimation) only as against the sum of `.63,51,128/- paid as per Schedule Part B of TTI of ITR 6 of previous year resulting in not allowing the credit o

Facts indicate that the assessee is a partnership firm of two partners and doing the business of export of hardware items. The assessee purchases raw material and after assembling and doing the job work, the same are exported to foreign countries and

Facts indicate that the assessee is a company incorporated in Australia. It was engaged in the business of providing equipment on hiring and manpower etc. for exploration and production of mineral oil and natural gas. During the year under appeal. th

It appears that the assessee is not interested in getting the appeal prosecuted. Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Tukojirao Holkar Vs CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP), while dismissing the reference made at the instance of the assessee in default

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

Facts, in brief, as per the relevant orders are that return declaring income of `1,92,16,940/- filed on 29-09-2009 by the assessee, providing consultancy of automotive components, was selected for scrutiny with the service of notice u/s 143(2) of the

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee is a commercial bank having its Head Office in U.A.E. The assessee has two branches in India i.e. Mumbai and Bangalore. It is involved in normal banking activities including financing of foreign

There are several ground raised by Revenue as well as assessee please check the judgment to obtain the fact of the case.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), CIT(A) is bad, both in the eyes of law and on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both

Facts, in brief, as per relevant orders are that return declaring income of ``1,19,38,802/- filed on 28.10.2005 by the assessee, a partnership firm carrying on the profession of Ophthalmology surgeons, was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act,