Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

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,

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has declared long term capital gains of `.1,28,258,902/- out of which long term capital gain, of `.3,75,902/- pertained to listed shares. The entire LTCG was claimed as exempt under section 10(38) includi

facts, in brief, as per relevant orders are that return declaring nil income, after set off of business loss of ``568,87,510/- , filed on 31.10.2005 by the assessee, engaged in the business of publishing of telephone directory with yellow pages, was

In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd.; 38 ITD 320 (Del), the appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal, which was fixed for hearing. But on the date of hearing nobody represented the revenue/appellant nor any co

The Appellant herein as landlord filed a suit for eviction against the respondent company on the ground of default in making payment of the rents and also on grounds of reasonable requirement, in the City Civil Court at Calcutta, under the provisions