Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

If the party, at whose instance the reference is made, fails to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of the paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that expenses of Rs.4,13,52,970/- was not incurred by the assessee wholly and exclusively for the purpose of its own business. On the facts and in t

Facts, in brief, as per relevant orders are that return declaring nil income after adjusting brought forward loss of ``10,74,016/-. under the normal provisions and book profits of `8,67,496/- in terms of the provisions of section 115JB of the Income-

Briefly stated, assessee is an Actress and showed gross receipts of `30,92,000/- in her income expenditure statement. She has shown an amount of `35,75,000/- as advance received. AO on noticing that assessee is following cash system of accounting bro

After informing that matter will be heard on a particular date, 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 this a

For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the assessment order passed was in violation of principles of natural justice hence is bad in law and be quashed. (2) For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Assessing Office

The main fact of the case is that there is no provision in section 115JB to allow deduction under section 54EC of the Act. Computation of book profit is provided under section 115JB, which is a separate code by itself, wherein the first step is to co

The facts filed before the first appellate authority indicate that the assessee was retired from Ministry of Defence as Defence Estate Officer long back, from where he was getting his pension. After retirement he had started his own business of sale

That on facts and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding disallowance of additional depreciation to the tune of Rs. 4,05,12,853 and Rs. 1,52,73,164 on plant and machinery and tippers respectively without appreciating that the appellant was engaged in

We find that the AO has not given any reason for disallowing the claim. We also find that the AO has simply followed the findings of earlier assessment years. As similar additions in earlier assessment year has been deleted by Ld. CIT(A) which has be