Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

On the facts & in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 12,46,272/- made by the Learned Assessing Officer on interest free advances made to sister concerns

Briefly stated the facts are as under. The assessee is a cooperative bank engaged in the banking business. For the first quarter of financial year 2007-08, the assessee has filed its TDS returns without quoting the PAN numbers of deductees in 1933 ca

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of Trading in Electric Motors, Fans, Laboratory equipments and generation of Wind Power filed return declaring total income at Rs.11,60,151/-. During the course

That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld.CIT(A)-VI, Kolkata has erred in law as well as on facts by deleting the addition of excess depreciation claimed of Rs.1,61,95,130/- by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT in the case of th

This is an appeal filed by the revenue. It is directed against the order passed by the CIT (A) dated 3rd February, 2011 for Assessment Year 2006-07. The grounds of appeal read as under:- On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT (A)

We have heard both sides. The CBDT, vide above instruction has clearly laid down that the revenue should not prefer appeals against assessees before ITAT if the tax effect involved in the appeal, excluding interest, is less than Rs. 3 lacs. The tax p

The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as “CIT (A)”] erred in passing the order dated 22.03.2010 upholding the order of the Ld. AO without affording the Appellant proper opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the order

The ld. Commissioner of Income — tax (Appeals), ! XXXIII, Mumbai [“ld. CIT (A)”], erred in not adjudicating the ground raised by the Appellant challenging the action of the Assessing Officer [“A.O.”] in reassessing the income of the Appellant by invo

The respondent filed the suit for recovery of `5,89,434/- towards agent commission against the appellants claiming himself to be an agency of defendant No.3 (in the suit) an Italian Company, in India. Appellants floated a global tender for purchase o

Facts in brief as emerged from the corresponding assessment order passed u/s.143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 31/01/2006 and the penalty order passed u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961 dated 31/03/2008 were that the addition in respect of write off