Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

From the case observe the following fact... The learned CIT (Appeals), erred in confirming the finding of the Assessing Officer in not considering the gains on the sale of shares of Rs. 4,89,18,734/- as long term capital gains and thereby also con

At the time of hearing, none has put in appearance on behalf of the assessee. Also, no adjournment application is on the record. Keeping in view these facts, we are of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeal. Therefo

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company engaged in manufacturing of Rubber products and having manufacturing unit at Andheri and Grant Road. For the year under consideration, the appellant company decla

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grossly erred in upholding the action of ld. Assessing Officer in treating the loss on sale of shares as capital loss which is otherwise

The grounds of appeal read as under:- i) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-II, Dehradun has erred in law and in the facts and circumstances of the case in upholding the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3)/254 of the I.T. Act, 19

We have carefully considered the submissions of the rival parties and perused the material available on record. After having satisfied about the reasons submitted by the assessee and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the

We have carefully considered the submissions of the rival parties and perused the material available on record. The undisputed facts of the case in brief are that the assessee company is a fully owned subsidiary of Yahoo. Inc. USA which is engaged in

Your appellant submits that your appellant has not received any interest from the Partnership firm and as such the learned CIT(A) ought to have considered this and ought not to have confirmed the addition of Rs.6,56,049/- made by the learned A.O. on

Question raised in the case is. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) was justified in rejecting the appeal of the assessee and confirming the order of the ITO, Ward 32(3) and confirming the additio

The ground raised in the appeal is that on the facts of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in confirming that the Derivative Loss of ` 1,15,880/- on dealing in future and option derivatives of shares in Recognized Stock