Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

Brief stated facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is a partnership firm dealing in automobiles and Sony products and also into generation of electricity from windmills. The assessee filed its return of income for AY 2007-08 declaring income

the question about admissibility of depreciation of Acquired Business Database is concerned, this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt Ltd (331

We have considered the facts of the case and submissions made before us. We have already mentioned that there is a distinguishable feature namely that the assessee has received payments from persons residents in India. However, the receipts have been

We may first take up the case of M/s Mother Dairy India Ltd. for the assessment year 2004-05. This company hereinafter referred to as „Dairy‟, was incorporated on 1.4.2003 as wholly owned subsidiary of another company by name Mother Dairy Fruit and V

The appellant’s appeal before the Tribunal has been dismissed on the ground of limitation inasmuch as it has been filed after a delay of 1049 days. The appeal before the Tribunal was against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax passed under Sectio

Facts: The writ petition filed by the appellants before the Delhi High Court for ordering an investigation by the CBI or a Special Investigation Team into '2G Spectrum Scam' for unearthing the role Shri A. Raja, senior officers of the department, mi

The writ petition was filed by the respondent pleading that the appellant had on 3rd January, 2003 seized ` 7,75,000/- in Indian currency and foreign currency equivalent to `96,000/- from the custody of the respondent and initiated inquiry under the

In the return of income the aforesaid amount was claimed to be not taxable under the Act. The Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to explain how the aforesaid items were not taxable. In response to the query, the assessee submitted a written r

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of `.50,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being the unexplained share capital and share premium.

Assessee filed original return of income on 1.11.2004 declaring an income of Rs.92,076/-. The case was processed u/s 143(1) and later on case was selected for scrutiny. In response to notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1), the assessee’s representative appear