Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), CIT(A) is bad, both in the eyes of law and on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both

Facts, in brief, as per relevant orders are that return declaring income of ``1,19,38,802/- filed on 28.10.2005 by the assessee, a partnership firm carrying on the profession of Ophthalmology surgeons, was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act,

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has declared long term capital gains of `.1,28,258,902/- out of which long term capital gain, of `.3,75,902/- pertained to listed shares. The entire LTCG was claimed as exempt under section 10(38) includi

facts, in brief, as per relevant orders are that return declaring nil income, after set off of business loss of ``568,87,510/- , filed on 31.10.2005 by the assessee, engaged in the business of publishing of telephone directory with yellow pages, was

In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd.; 38 ITD 320 (Del), the appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal, which was fixed for hearing. But on the date of hearing nobody represented the revenue/appellant nor any co

The Appellant herein as landlord filed a suit for eviction against the respondent company on the ground of default in making payment of the rents and also on grounds of reasonable requirement, in the City Civil Court at Calcutta, under the provisions

The learned Assessing Officer has erred in disallowing Rs. 25.00 lacs, on ad hoc basis, towards share trading expenses on erroneous assumption that the appellant has incurred expenditure towards speculation business and allocated on proportion basis

The facts in brief are that the assessee for the assessment year 1999-00 had declared long term capital loss of Rs.4,01,75,013/- on sale of shares which had been set off against short term capital gain from sale of shares of Rs.3,98,40,597/- and thus

The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 47,59,846/- being payment made to the sub-contractors on the ground that identification of these sub-contractors are not proved without properly appreciating the facts of the case and law applic

Facts indicate that Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1,98,64,646/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act against which assessee preferred appeal in which action of he Assessing Officer in regard to addition u/s 68 of the Act was challenge