Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

The facts, in brief, are that in the assessment order the AO had noted that assessee had shown dividend income of Rs. 98,59,980/-, which is exempt. However, the assessee had not disallowed any expenditure for earning exempt income. The AO, therefore,

The first issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of travelling expenses by treating the same as not being business expenses even though the Fringe Benefit Tax (FBT) liability was worked out u/s. 11

The facts of the case as per SOF filed by the assessee, are that the Appellant Association is a mutual organization registered under the Maharashtra Co-op. Housing Society Act, 1960, affiliated to the Mumbai District Co-op. Housing Federation Ltd., f

That the Assessing Officer (‘AO”) erred on facts and circumstances of the case and in law in assessing the income of the Appellant under the normal provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at Rs. 17,52,18,050 against returned income of Rs 3,8

These appeals were originally posted for hearing on 09.11.2011 (vide AD card) and at the request of the assessee it was adjourned from time to time and finally posted for hearing on 04.04.2012 on which date none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Th

We have perused the records and considered the rival contentions carefully. The dispute is regarding maintainability of appeals only on ground of low tax effects CBDT had been issuing circulars from time to time directing revenue authorities not to f

The facts are that against the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), wherein CIT(A) in order bearing no. CIT(A)/41/DCCC-38/IT 257/09-10 dated 14/12/2009 gave directions to the AO, saying, “ ......In view of the fact, the

confirming the disallowance of interest of Rs. 32,30,685/-. The basis for the same, the reasons and also the working of the disallowance are in correct and improper.” By order dated 16.4.2009 the aforesaid ground of appeal was dismissed by the T

These two companies entered into a joint venture agreement on 14th July, 2003 for setting up a project in the State of Mizoram. After sometime, the company pulled out of it. They entered into a different relationship. The petitioning creditor agreed,

From a rending of sub-section (1) of section 263, it is clear that the power of suo motu revision can be exercised by the Commissioner only if, on examination of the records of any proceedings under this Act, he considers that any order passed therei