Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

I have carefully examined the submissions.The refund claim in question comprises three distinct elements. The claim of Rs.2,81,558/- is in respect of remoulded chocolates. There is no disputed of the fact that this item has been held to be non-excisa

Whether in the facts & circumstances of the case Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in law and facts of the case in annulling the re-assessment proceedings merely on the ground of service of notice ignoring the provisions of section 2

The tribunal in the impugned order has not referred to the factual matrix or given any finding either affirming or contrary to the finding recorded by the Assessing Officer/CIT (Appeals). The tribunal referred to the decision of the Jaipur Bench in t

I have carefully considered the various arguments raised by the appellant and also the material brought on record by the Assessing Officer. On the issue of notice u/s. 143(2), I have called for and examined the case records of the Assessing Officer.

Adverting first to ground no.1 in the appeal, facts, in brief, as per relevant orders are that return filed on 31.03.2002 by the assessee, a financial services company, was selected for scrutiny with the service of a notice u/s 143(2) of the Income-t

The facts which emerge from the record are that the Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as „the complainant‟) sent a complaint dated 7th November, 2002 in which following allegations were made by him:- “Shri Subhash Cha

The assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of providing professional services and trading of shares. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed on 31.10.2001 declaring net income of Rs.13,833/-. The reasses

On the observation we find the following fact... The assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of writing instruments. During the relevant assessment year, the assessee has changed the method of valuation of stock. Due to t

We have heard both the parties and gone through the facts of the case. Indisputably, the ld. CIT(A) considered additional material in relation to two comparables and that of the assessee, which was not available before the TPO/AO. Apparently, the ld.

This case was listed for hearing before the Tribunal on 28-2-2012 and for this assessee was informed. Today i.e. on 28-2-2012 when the case was called on board, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any request for adjournment has been filed be