Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

Despite sending notice of hearing sufficiently in advance, assessee did not appear nor any application for adjournment has been received at the time of hearing of the appeal, in spite of the fact that earlier also on 23.3.2011 and 10.8.2011, the appe

In the instant appeal, there are total three grounds. Ground No. 3 is general in nature. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 raises the same issue. Both impugn the directions issued by Ld. CIT (A) to the AO to re-compute the deduction u/s 80HHC in accordance with th

The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law in treating `35,49,091/- as revenue receipt being the amount received from the flat owners and / or tenants for replacement of capital assets and shown as sinking fund in accounts which was co

This case was listed for hearing before the Tribunal on 01-5-2012 and for this assessee was informed. Today i.e. on 01-5-2012 when the case was called on board, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any request for adjournment has been filed be

The assessee is a company engaged in the business of syndication of loans, placement of bond and other financial instruments. The assessee received dividend income of Rs. 21,09,430/-, which did not form part of the total income under the Act. In view

Brief facts of the instant case are that the assessee filed its return on 31.10.2002. On 28.3.2008 the Assessing Officer passed assessment order. Made disallowance u/s 10A of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) by partly all

Having regard to the facts stated above and keeping in view of the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the ITAT Rules as were considered by the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan (India) Ltd. reported in 38 ITR 320 (Del) and by the Hon’ble Madhya Prad

Facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return qua the assessment year on14.11.2006 declaring total income of Rs. 25,88,000/-. Also claimed dividend of Rs. 3,03,110/- as exempt from tax u/s 10(34) of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer

It is the say of the petitioner that they applied for a certified copy of the order on the same date, which was received on 12.11.2010 but filed the appeal on 31.1.2011. Thus, it is not in dispute that the appeal is barred by time and is even beyond

The brief facts of the case are that assessee during the year was engaged in the business of solar photo-voltaic wafers, cells, modules and systems etc. It has filed its return of income on 30th October, 2002 declaring loss of Rs.7,47,14,276. The cas