The appeal was filed on 08.12.2010 when an acknowledgement cum- notice was served on the bearer under which the appeal was fixed for hearing on 10.02.2011. None attended on that date. Thereafter, another notice dated 07.10.2011 was served on the asse..
Brief facts of this issue are that during the year, the company has written off unsecured loans to the tune of Rs.52.75 lakhs and it is mentioned in the schedule-L i.e., notes forming part of accounts that there was no claim from the loan creditors a..
The above appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated 01.06.2009 of the ld. CIT-XII (Admn.), Kolkata pertaining to A.yr. 2005-06. This appeal is against order u/s 263 of the IT Act wherein the ld.CIT(Admn) has directed the AO to make disa..
The present appeal is filed by the revenue against the ld. CIT(A)’s order dated 22.11.2010 passed in the matter of an assessment made by the Assessing Officer u/s 115WE(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2006-07. The only ground raised by th..
I have heard Ld. DR Shri R. Gupta and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. I find that the assessee has purchased fixed deposit from ITC Classic Finance Ltd. On 27.06.1995 vide receipt no. 02/199506/53666C/53667C/53702C at Rs.12,600/- (i..
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) dated 2nd June, 2011 for Asstt. Year 2005-06. The grounds of appeal read as under: “That order passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the ld. CIT(A)-II,..
In completing the assessment, the assessing authority has made addition of ` 49,534/- as disallowance of interest attributable to loan creditors. The assessee’s books of accounts contained loan credits brought down from the earlier assessment year an..
The first ground relates to addition of Rs.13,77,000/- made u/s 68 by the AO. During the assessment proceedings the assessee was asked by the AO to prove the identity of the lender, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the lender in..
Petitioner Ram Baran Ram has filed instant petition of writ asking for a relief for quashing of FIR of Gaunaha P.S. Case No.23 of 2009 arising out of Special P.S. Case No.25 of 2009 as well as Gaunaha P.S. Case No.01 of 2010. The shorn of unnecessar..
The petitioners are aggrieved by the communications dated 5/10/2011 and 21/10/2011 whereby the petitioners are informed that the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) as well the Appellate Committee of the AICTE respectively, have decline..
The tax effect in this case is found to be less than `.3 lac, the limit prescribed under Instruction No. 3/2011 dated 09.02.2011 and when ld. DR was apprised of this fact, he could not controvert the same and he was also unable to show that the case ..
The ground raised by the assessee is that the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in confirming that cash assistance is taxable in the hands of the assessee. It is the case of the assessee that the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) himsel..
In brief, the factual background giving rise to the impugned dispute can be summarized as follows. By a letter dated 18.12.2006, it was pointed out by the assessee that a refund of Rs 6,78,32,796/- was received by it on 1.4.2006 in consequence of the..
A. The grievance relatable to IFCI Ltd. (appointed as the operating agency by BIFR vide order dated 08.08.2005 with a mandate to prepare a scheme for revival of the „Company‟) that it being one of the five secured creditors of the „Company‟, IFCI Ltd..
This case was listed for hearing before the Tribunal on 08-12-2011 and for this assessee was informed. Today i.e. on 08-12-2011 when the case was called on board, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any request for adjournment has been filed ..
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) ought not have deleted the addition of Rs. 4,49,95,728 representing expenses for acquisition of rights The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciate the fact that the provisions of sec. 32..
Total amount claimed as per plaint is `18,38,112/- and pre-suit interest @12% per annum was claimed at `14,15,346/-. Decree prayed for as per the plaint is in sum of `32,53,458/-...
. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the ld.AO in making addition of ` 15,00,000/- being share application money received during the year holding the sam..
It is the petitioner’s case that upon complaints of corruption against Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Member, CESTAT, the President of the CESTAT - a former Chief Justice of a High Court, made some adverse entries in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of ..
The brief facts of the case are that search and seizure operations u/s 132(1) of the Income –Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were conducted at the residence and business premises of the various members of Maheswari Brothers Group o..
Member Strength 9,46,696 and growing..
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
