Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee filed a return declaring loss of Rs.3,95,706/- and his assessment was finalized u/s 143(3) of the Act at an income of Rs.3,84,698. During the assessment, the AO obs

Whether amounts transferred by the assessee to Mandi Parishad would constitute application of income for charitable purposes within the meaning of Section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?”

The relevant facts of the case giving rise to these appeals are as follows. The assessee is a private limited company which filed its return of income for A.Y. 1981-82, 82-83 and 83-84 on 30.6.1981, 30.6.1982 and 10.8.1983 respectively. On the basis

The relevant facts of the case giving rise to these appeals are as follows. The assessee is a private limited company which filed its return of income for A.Y. 1981-82, 82-83 and 83-84 on 30.6.1981, 30.6.1982 and 10.8.1983 respectively. On the basis

That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the disallowance of ` 30,07,454/- made by the Assessing Officer in respect of expenditure on repairs and maintenance of building incurred by the appellant, holding th

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company and it has filed return of income on 31.10.2005. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that assess

We find that CIT(A) has passed a non-speaking order by following the decision of ITAT in the case of Multiplan India (Pvt.) Ltd. (supra). We are of the view that where appeal has been disposed of even though on merits without a speaking order, the or

At the time of hearing, ld A.R. submitted that assessee be allowed to withdraw his appeal. Learned D.R submitted that he has no objection to accept the prayer of ld A.R. In view of submissions of ld representatives of parties, we accept assessee’s pr

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on account of rejection of indexed cost without appreciating the facts that the assessee has not produced any evidence for acquisition cos

In this case return of income declaring total income of ` 108107/- was filed on 31.10.1993 after claiming deduction of ` 3,08,43,785/- u/s. 80HHC of the Act. Original assessment in this case was completed u/s. 143(3) on 29.3.1996. At the time of orig