Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

At the time of hearing, the learned AR submitted that the assessee company has not received assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 148 r/w section 143(3) for the assessment year 2002-03 as stated by the Assessing Officer that the order

Having regard to Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules, 1963 and following various decisions of the Tribunal including in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del.) and the judgment of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case

The issue in appeal lies in a very narrow compass of material facts. The assessee is engaged in the business of rendering stevedoring and CFS (container freight station) services. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer not

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition on account of Rs.23,00,894/- on account of short recoveries, despite the fact that the transacting parties continued to do business regularly. CIT(A) di

We have heard the learned counsel for the assessee and the ld. Departmental Representative and considered their submissions carefully. Ld. C.I.T.(A) came to the conclusion that Rule 8D of I.T. Rules will not apply for this assessment year and Rule 8D

Despite sending defect memo and notice of hearing sufficiently in advance, assessee did not respond either to defect memo or notice of hearing. So, it is inferred that the assessee is not interested in prosecution of this appeal

The brief facts necessitating the present revision petition are that acting on intelligence that large quantity of ball bearing were being smuggled from Nepal into Delhi, the DRI kept surveillance in and around Delhi. On 04.08.1992, the DRI intercept

The assessee company is engaged in the business of real estate. During this year it purchased some land in district Alwar (Rajasthan) through Shri Jagdish Beniwal, who used to coordinate in purchases between the assessee company and the sellers of th

These appeals under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short “the Act”) are directed against a common final order, dated 2nd February 2005 in Appeal No. E/5261-62/04-NB(A), passed by the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribuna

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in upholding the disallowance of interest and deemed expenses under section 14A of the Income-tax Act read with Rule 8D. That on the fact