Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

The CIT thereafter issued notice dated 24.2.2009 under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act” for short) recording the following reasons: “From the computation of income filed with the return, it appears that this profit on sale of proper

This company was incorporated in 1948 with registered office at Calcutta. The authorized capital of the company was Rs. 10 lacs consisting of 4000 6% tax free redeemable cumulative preference shares of Rs. 100/-each and 6000 ordinary shares of Rs. 1

These two applications were heard on 1.3.2001. The learned Sr.Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Mitra, submitted as follows: At the time when the petition was heard, there was no document available with the petitioners to support their claim that t

The grounds raised read as under: “(i) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing the order u/s. 154 even though there was no error apparent from

The facts of the instant case, in brief, are that the petitioner incorporated a company in the year 1995 under the name and style of Maha Bhairav Plantation Pvt. Ltd. having its registered office at 308, Vinay Place, 11, Ashoka Marg, Lucknow-226001.

Facts of the case is that the assessee filed return of income for the relevant Assessment Year 2005-06 on 28.10.2005 disclosing ‘Nil’ total income after claiming deduction u/s. 10B of the Act of Rs.6,30,71,257/-. Assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act was

We have heard the learned DR and the learned counsel for the assessee. The learned counsel for the assessee filed written submissions with a copy orders pages 1-20. The interesting point is that the revenue filed misc. petition in connection with IT(

We have heard both the parties and gone through the facts of the case as also the aforesaid decision relied upon by the ld. DR. A mere glance at the impugned order reveals that the order passed by the ld. CIT (A) is cryptic and grossly violative of o

Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in holding that duty entitlement pass book credit was cash assistance within the meaning of clause (iiib) to Section 28 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the entire amount including the premium receiv

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 83,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on protective basis in respect of income from alleged undisclosed sources on the basis of the c