Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

It was observed that certain advances were received by the assessee from the intending buyers in terms of agreement dated 30.01.1999 for providing electrical connection and fire fighting equipments. These advances were not considered to be receipts i

It was observed that the balance in the shares account is Rs.23,52,580/- whereas as per books of account and as per trial balance it is Rs.22,93,130/- and assessee has failed to explain the difference or substantiate his plea that there is no differe

When these facts were brought to the notice of the ld. counsel for the assessee, he fairly submitted that the second appeal could not have been filed against the same order when the first appeal had already been dismissed by the ld. CIT(Appeals). On

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