Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) erred both in law and on facts in holding that the appellant was not entitled to deduction u/s 8OGGB only because the claim therefore was not made in the return or the revised re

Assessee is a company established by the Govt. of Maharashtra and was incorporated on 31.5.2005 pursuant to the provisions of Section 131, 133 and 134 of Part-XII of the Electricity Act, 2003 relating to the reorganization of Maharashtra State Electr

The brief facts of the case are that search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 10.5.2007 in M/s. U. Flex Ltd., Group of cases. The assessee was also covered under the search operation. In order to giv

Briefly stated assessee is a Member of Stock Exchange, Mumbai. Vide order dated 4.4.2001 assessee was debarred from undertaking any fresh business as a stock broker or merchant banker till further orders. This order was confirmed by SEBI vide order d

In sequel to orders passed by this Court with the earnest efforts of Mediators, namely, Mr. J.S. Bhogal, Senior Advocate and Mr. Pawan Thakur, Advocate, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. The parties have jointly placed on reco

Assessee company is deriving income from doing hard chromium plating on textiles, embossing rollers, mirror rollers, machinery parts etc. and rent from its building premises at Worli. Return of income was filed on 26.09.2008 declaring net loss of 1.8

Even on the facts, it is noticed that the D.V.O has estimated the cost of construction at Rs.. 29,06,032/- as against the cost of construction recorded by the assessee of Rs.26,29,160/-. The variation is amount of Rs. 2,76,863/,- which is less than 1

Capital expenditure debited to P&L account: In the Tax Audit Report, the auditor has identified the amount as capital expenditure. The details of the same have been furnished in the Annexure 1 to the Audit Report. Accordingly, the same was clearly di

In appellate proceedings, Ld. CIT(A) allowed the assessee’s claim that the interest income of ` 13,17,241/- was not to be taxed as income from other sources. However, ITAT vide its order in ITA No. 1378/Del/2005 dated 25.3.2008 reversed the order of

That in a case were the assessee has filed two sets of audited accounts one before the assessing officer and the other before the Bank for which loans were taken. The CIT(A), erred both in the Laws and in Facts in not invoking the provisions under c