Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

Permission to withdraw the appeal made by the appellant

That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A), Kolkata has erred in law in directing the A.O. to treat sundry receipts of Rs.56,l0,000/- as business income without appreciating the fact that the assessee at the same time claims 60:40 di

The facts giving rise to the present writ petition and which are necessary for a decision in this writ petition are very few. By virtue of an order dated 31.03.2008, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal disposed of the said ITA Nos. 3584 to 3586 (Del)/2

The DIT (E) has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in canceling the Registration u/s 12A(a) with effect from assessment year 2009-10 and onwards, discarding the fact that the Society is engaged in providing medical relief to the

The facts as stated in the order of Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) are that the assessee is in the business of inbound tour operation and it provides services to foreign tourists visiting the Indian subcontinent. The assessee does not have any b

No one was present on behalf of the assessee and no adjournment petition was also moved on behalf of assessee. At the time of hearing before us two defects were found in the receipt. Firstly the appeal is not signed by the Managing Director and secon

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in :- Deleting the addition of ` 6,33,212/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of Long Term Capital Gain u/s. 50C(1) of the Income Tax

The fact of the is the applicability of provision of sec 271 (1) (C) of the Act.after disclosure of the fact in Balance Sheet.

We can find the facts of the case after considering the above as well as on law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming disallowance of provision for bad and doubtful debts to the extent of Rs.63,45,02,440 claimed by the appellant under the first

Assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that applying Rule 8D for the year under consideration is against the ratio laid down by the Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs D