The Plaintiff, Oriental Cuisines Private Limited, filed the suit alleging passing off and infringement of its trademark and copyright in the mark “THE NOODLE HOUSE” by the defendant, Star Restaurants Private Limited, seeking a decree of permanent
Rights of an auction-purchaser in the property purchased by him cannot be extinguished. Exceptions: In cases where the said purchase can be assailed on the following grounds: 1. Collusion 2. Fraud
This is a set of two revenue’s appeals for A.Y. 2004-05 and 2005-06 on the quantum assessment and the corresponding cross-objections by the assessee. Revenue has also filed appeal against deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for A.Y. 2005-06.
The assessee is a Company and is engaged in the business of manufacturing of white crystal sugar. It filed its return of income on 25.11.2006 declaring total income of Rs.1,01,251/-. The Ld.AO complete the assessment u/s 143(3) on 31.12.2008 determin
In brief the facts are that in this case return of income was filed by the assessee declaring a loss of Rs. 19,906/-. The assessment was completed by the A.O. u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act at an income of Rs. 12,42,412/- by making following disallowance
This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax(A)-III, New Delhi dated 1.11.2012 in Appeal No. 619/11-12/C.I.T.(A)-III for AY 2005-06
This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VII, New Delhi dated 24.6.2011 pertaining to assessment year 2008-09
A brief analysis of the study depicts that though the assessee was proceeded ex-parte, the learned CIT(A) has not decided the matter on merits.
The assessee is in appeal against the order dated 16.09.2009 passed by the ld. CIT(A) in the matter of an assessment made by the AO u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (“the Act”) for the A.Y. 2004-05.
This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VII, New Delhi dated 24.6.2011 pertaining to assessment year 2008-09.
This is assessee’s appeal against CIT(A)’s order dated 2-07- 2012 relating to A.Y. 2008-09. Various grounds are raised, which in effect raise following issues: (i) disallowance of expenditure; and (ii) disallowance of business expenditure.
It is very unfortunate litigation between the husband/petitioner and wife/respondent who are Advocates of the Supreme Court and of this Court. They got married on 25th January, 1996. However, in the year 2004, the husband, who is the petitioner herei
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in annulling the re-assessment proceedings u/s 147 on the basis of change of opinion by the AO on the issue of ‘allowability of Sponsorship Expenses’ even when the AO did not
We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below. On perusal of assessment order, we find that the assessment has been completed under sec. 143(3) of the Act. Notices under sec. 143(2) and/or under sec. 14
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee company is a financial company under the Interest Tax Act, 1974, liable to tax there under and if yes, then which portion of the income/receipts of the assessee company can be co
It was fairly conceded by the Ld.AR of the assessee that the issue involved is covered against the assessee by the decision of the special bench of the Tribunal rendered in the case of ACIT vs. Hindustan Mint & Agro Products Pvt. Ltd., as reported in
In all these three appeals by the assessee, the only ground raised is about the chargeability of Fringe Benefit Tax (FBT) on channel placement charges. The amount of channel placement charges paid by the assessee in the years under appeal is as under
Ld. Counsel for the assessee contends that assessee’s assessment in question was framed u/s 143(3) making various additions alleging that assessee could not file necessary evidence ignoring the fact that sufficient time was not given to the assessee.
This case was listed for hearing before the Tribunal on 15-4-2013 and for this assessee was informed. Today i.e. on 15-4-2013 when the case was called on board, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any request for adjournment has been filed
In September, 1991, an investment of Rs.65 crores came to be made by four subscribers, who applied for purchase of CANCIGO units floated by (Canbank Mutual Fund (hereinafter referred to as ‘CMF’), a fund created by Canara Bank. The Andhra Bank and An