Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

We can find the facts of the case after considering the above as well as on law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming disallowance of provision for bad and doubtful debts to the extent of Rs.63,45,02,440 claimed by the appellant under the first

Assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that applying Rule 8D for the year under consideration is against the ratio laid down by the Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs D

if the assessee through proper application can satisfy the Tribunal for such non appearance on the date of hearing, the Tribunal may at its discretion recall this order.

Facts, in brief, as per relevant orders are that return declaring income of ``12,75,862/- on a/c of short term capital gains and nil business income filed on 30.09.2008 by the assessee, after being processed u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (he

In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to grant exemption u/s. 11 of the IT Act to the assessee when the status of the assessee that was held as “AOP” for the reasons as discussed in t

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in disallowing an ad-hoc amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- towards gift expenses on the alleged ground that the gift expenses are not incurred wh

Before us, both the learned Representatives agree that the tax effect in the Revenue’s appeal is less than ` 3,00,000. As per CBDT Instruction no.3 of 2011, dated 9th February 2011, the appeal before the Appellate Rishabh Investments P. Ltd. Tribuna

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of Soya Oil. In the case of Ruchi Soya Group, a search and seizure action u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (the Act) was carried out by th

We find that the only grievance of the Revenue is that the amendment brought in the Income Tax Act u/s. 40(a(ia) was only effective from 1.4.2010 and not retrospective in nature

The brief facts of this issue are that while doing the scrutiny assessment AO observed that “the assessee firm vas engaged in the business of developing and promoting. During the course of hearing, Sri Chakraborty, A/r of the firm, furnished various