Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

The revenue has questioned the first appellate order on the following grounds: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.21,63,393/- being the amount receivable from M/s Adk

Assessee company in this case is engaged in the business of manufacturing, designing and fabrication of aluminum and architectural products. In this case it was noted that the assessee has shown ` 3,87,74,848/- as mobilization advance under the head

Facts in brief:- The assessee is a Private Limited Company. It filed its return of income on 26.9.2009 declaring a loss of Rs.26,498/-. The assessee company had dividend income of Rs.41,82,220/-, which claimed as exempt under Section 10(34) of the In

the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in rejecting the appeal filed by the appellant against the assessment order dated 23 December, 2009 by alleging non appearance of the appellant and assuming that the

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacture and trade in colour TVs, air-conditioners, refrigerators, microwave oven, washing machine, compressors, vacuum cleaners etc. It emerges out from the

Facts, in brief, as per relevant orders are that return declaring income of ``1,12,277/- beside agricultural income of ``1,05,000/-,filed on 9th July, 2007 by the assessee, was selected for scrutiny with the service of a notice u/s 143(2) of the Inco

The assessee has questioned first appellate order on several grounds involving two issues. Firstly as to whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the AO in treating and apportioning the entire foreign traveling expenses of Rs. 19,4

Despite sending notice by the registered post AD sufficiently in advance, assessee did not appear nor any request for adjournment has been received. The notice has also not been received back unserved. Therefore, it is inferred that assessee is not i

Fact of the case is depreciation on block of asset.

In support of ground No. 3 the Ld. AR submitted that the counsel of the assessee had been appearing before the Ld. CIT(A) to cooperate with the first appellate authority and only on 15.3.2010 the counsel of the assessee could not appear before the Ld