Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

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

In the present case also, no obligation on the part of the respondents to frame the Rules, notwithstanding the impracticality thereof, is established. It is purely a policy matter. The Supreme Court in Kanhaiya Lal Sethia Vs. UOI (1997) 6 SCC 573 hel

I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. Briefly the facts giving rise to the present petition are that on 15th October, 1992, on the basis of a secret information, one Virender Singh Batra was apprehended by the Respondent, R.K. Virmani wh

It was submitted that there is a major increase in sale as well as the profit of the company and that is only due to the efforts of the said director of the company. It was submitted that the provisions of Section 36 (1)(ii) will not be applicable. I

We can observe that the penalty under sec 271(1) (c) can be imposed only on the basis which can survive and not by manipulating the basis on the falls fact.