Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

That on facts and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding disallowance of additional depreciation to the tune of Rs. 4,05,12,853 and Rs. 1,52,73,164 on plant and machinery and tippers respectively without appreciating that the appellant was engaged in

We find that the AO has not given any reason for disallowing the claim. We also find that the AO has simply followed the findings of earlier assessment years. As similar additions in earlier assessment year has been deleted by Ld. CIT(A) which has be

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) was correct in holding that consultancy fees paid to Singapore based foreign company were not chargeable to tax in India, as well as the applicability of section 40(a)(ia)

The learned counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that in the immediately preceding assessment years, Assessing Officer has accepted the existence of PE as well as the profit attributable to such PE. Hence, income of the assessee has

Having regard to Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules, 1963 and following various decisions of the Tribunal including in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del.) and the judgment of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case

None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the appeal was called for hearing nor any request for adjournment was filed. Earlier also none appeared on behalf of the assessee on 21.2.2012. In these circumstances, it , therefore, appears that the asse

The facts of the case for assessment year 2003-04 are that the assessee filed its return on 28.11.2003 showing total income of ` 2,45,83,770/-. The assessee is tax - resident of the USA and it is earning income of the nature of the royalty from Yum R

At the threshold, we note that tax effect in this case is less than `3 lacs fixed by the CBDT for filing appeal before the tribunal. As per Instruction No. 3/2011 (F.No. 279/Misc./142/2007-ITJ) dated 09.02.2011 issued by the CBDT, the tax effect for

Brief facts of the case explained below: The assessee moved applications u/s 12A(1)(aa) and U/s 80G(5)(vi) of the Income Tax Act. The applications were accompanied by a copy of trust deed dated 27-12-2010 to the CIT, Rohtak on 9-3-2011. CIT calle

From the observation of the Judgment we can find the fact that the interest paid by the assessee on borrowed fund can claim as deduction only if the fund is utilized for business purpose.