Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

From the observation we can find the following fact.. The assessee is engaged in the business of jobbing / arbitrage activities. He undertakes business of share trading on his own account. He filed his return of income on 27th July 2006, declaring

At the very outset, Ld. DR submitted that with respect to all the three additions of Rs.4,37,45,772/-, 5,64,000/- and Rs.5,39,585/- on account of purchases, excess remuneration and commission paid respectively, the assessee did not file necessary con

We find that appeal in this case was filed on 4.2.2011 i.e. before the aforesaid instruction dated 9.2.2011. However, tax effect is below even ``2 lacs, stipulated in CBDT instruct ion no. 5 of 2008 dated 15.5.2008. Moreover, a co-ordinate Bench vide

We have heard the ld AR of the assessee as well as the ld DR and considered the relevant material on record. The Assessing Officer has disallowed a sum of Rs.1,61,390/- u/s 14A by applying Rule 8D of I T Rules. The CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowa

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in directing to allow interest under section 244A on the amount of self assessment tax ignoring the Circular No.769 and 790 issued by the CBDT The facts which are

With a view to grant some relief in the price rise to the consumers, who had to pay the enhanced price of petrol and diesel, Government of NCT of Delhi issued Memorandum No. F.1(13)/PII/VAT/Act/2006/2069 dated 20th June, 2006 to the following effect:

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition in this Court alleging that the respondent custom authority is delaying the release of the said consignment by taking the plea that the goods imported were old and used and therefore, they are “Elect

The petitioner by this writ petition impugns the quantum of award released to him, inter alia, contending that he was earlier sanctioned reward @ 20% of the customs duty vide certificates dated 26th March, 1998, 24th May, 2004 and 27th June, 2006 on

The brief facts are that the Respondent/ Complainant i.e. Registrar of Companies (ROC) received a complaint regarding the affairs of M/s. Tianjin Tianshi India Pvt. Ltd. (the Company) being irregular and illegal. A letter dated 24.02.2004 was issued

The brief facts necessitating the disposal of the present petition are that a complaint was received by the Regional Director, Northern Region, Noida regarding irregularity/ illegality in the affairs of the Petitioner Company. The complaint was forwa