Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

During the year the assessee company had raised unsecured loans of ` 96,65,438/-, the source of which remains unverified in view of the facts that no details with regard to the same is available. Hence, the same are disallowed and added back to the i

In the present application, the assessee has contended that in the aforesaid order, a typographical mistake has crept in inasmuch as in para 10 of our said order, we have wrongly extracted the portion of para 3 of the CIT (A)’s order, taking it to be

the relevant facts as available from the concerned orders are that the assessee, during the year, was engaged in the business of plying of trucks/tankers to various oil companies and derived income from house property also. He declared income on nine

The brief facts about the case are that assessee is an individual and she filed her return of income for the Assessment Year 2007-08 declaring total income of Rs.1,66,425/-. The income consisted of salary income from Shashi International Pvt. Ltd. in

The appellant has raised following grounds of appeal:- (1) “The learned CIT(A) has grossly erred on the facts of the case and in law upholding disallowance of actual incurred expenditure of Rs.3,20,514/- being the management fee paid to ICICI Prud

This case was listed for hearing before the Tribunal on 15-10-2012 and for this assessee was informed. Today i.e. on 15-10-2012 when the case was called on board, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any request for adjournment has been filed

The facts as per the relevant orders are that a search was conducted on the assessee on 15.01.2009, together with searches in the Gopal Zarda group of cases. The assessee individual is a partner in certain firms and has, during the year, derived inco

The present case is identical and similar to the issue decided by COD’s and the amendment made through the Finance Act, 2007 wherein it has been provided that tax shall not be deducted on payments of commission or brokerage payable by Bharat Sanchar

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing depreciation on certain fixed assets, particularly when full cost of such assets stood allowed in earlier years as application of income and further allowance by way

The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law, on facts and circumstances of the case in assuming jurisdiction for giving direction for disallowing expenditure in the year which was not before him such directions are beyond the scope of statutory powers of CIT