Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

The return of income in the present case was filed at a loss of Rs.19,03,733/-. The only addition made to that loss is regarding depreciation claimed on computers which is granted by the Assessing Officer @15% as against the claim of the assessee of

The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is a Doctor by profession and also a partner in Shushrusha Hospital & ICU. During the year under consideration, the assessee filed his return of income declaring total income at Rs. 2,94,000/-. Subsequently,

. 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

From the observation we can find the following fact.. The assessee is a company engaged in management consultancy, implementation of internal controls, system audits, arranging finance from financial institutions and financing and advisory services

That being so and in view of the recent CBDT Instruction No. 3 of 2011 dated 9th February, 2011 reported in (2011) 332 ITR 1 (Statutes) and the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Madhukar K. Inamdar (

Analysis of the case found the following ... Ground no. 1 is regarding the disallowance of interest u/s. 14A. We have heard the learned AR as well as the learned DR and considered the relevant material on record. Both the parties have agreed that th

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in overlooking the fact that though similar issue was raised during A.Y. 2005-06 and 2006-07 and decided in favour of the assessee by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, but the Custom

Out of the 05 (Five) Grounds of Appeal filed by the appellant against the order of the CIT(A) dt. 01-12-2010, the following 03 (Three) Grounds of Appeal are effective. They are: “The learned CIT(A) 21 erred in upholding the adding back to the tota

The present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) is directed against the Award dated 25th January 2006 passed by the learned Arbitrator (‘Respondent No.2’) holding that the claims of the Petitioner in respect

The Companies (Amendment) Ordinance, 1998 (No.19 of 1998) sub-section (5) of Section 205A of the Companies Act (hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟), 1956 was amended as regards transfer of unpaid dividend account of a company to the fund establishe