Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

I have considered the facts of the case and the submissions of the appellant. I have also perused the case laws as relied upon by the appellant. Before considering the appellant’s submission, it is important to look about the operative part of the di

Vide a penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) dated 27-03-2009, it was held that the assessee has concealed the income of Rs.8,16,617/- which was taxed on account of estimation of profit. The First Appellate Authority has expressed that since the addition was i

Briefly stated the assessee is a Partner in the firm M/s Balachandra Laboratories. The firm had property at Thane on which development rights were transferred to M/s Friends Development Corporation (FDC) for an amount of Rs.17.00 crores. The said fir

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business as builders, building contractors, labour contractors, property developers etc. The return was filed declaring total income at Rs.4,71,330/- on 30.10.2006, whic

The facts, in brief, are that the assessee who is a Joint Managing Director in M/s Ashapura Shipping Ltd. had received a gift of Rs. 55,00,000/- from Mr. Nilesh shah during the year under consideration. On being asked by the AO to furnish the detail

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual carrying on business of civil constructions and commission on sale of flats and miscellaneous income. She filed return declaring a total income of Rs.2,02,357/-. However, the ass

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of``3,11,85,809/- on account of disallowance of loss on trading of shares as not an allowable expenditure u/s 37(1) in view of violation of clause 11 me

The facts in the case before Hon’ble High Court (supra) are identical to the facts in hand because the assessment order was passed by the AO as per the discussion with CIT and as per the office note dt. 28/12/2006 then the subsequent CIT cannot revis

On this issue assessee contended in the ground that the Assessing Officer has erred in reopening the assessment mainly to disallow under section 14A of the Income Tax Act and took shelter under section 36(1)(iii) to avoid provisions of Section 14A wh

As regards first issue, Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.2,20,000 on account of accrued interest by IVP’s. The Assessing Officer has held that investment in the asset was the income of the assessee and therefore, interest income accrued thereon