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
The assessee has impugned action of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’) confirming the additions proposed by the Assessing Officer in the draft assessment order as against the returned income by holding that the revenue earned by the assessee fr
Although the matter is now before a Bench of five Judges, the terms of reference are not very clear. From what we have been able to gather from the pleadings and the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, the question to be considered is w
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing of auto catalyst. For assessment year 2005-06, the appellant filed its return of income on 31.10.2005, declaring a total income of Rs.12
The Ld. DRP and the Ld. AO (following the directions of the Ld. DRP), erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs. 3,83,76,374/- to the income of the appellant out of the total addition of Rs.5,49,44,194/- as propose
These are assessee’s appeals against assessment orders dated 31.10.2011 for A.Y. 2007-08 and dated 19.10.2012 for A.Y. 2008- 09.passed by the assessing officer u/s 143(3) after seeking directions from DRP u/s 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“
Facts in brief:- The assessee company is engaged mainly in the business of manufacture and sale of auto parts. During the year under reference the assessee company was in the process of setting up a plant for manufacturing of various auto components
On the facts and in the circumstances of the cazse and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals) has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.6,89,620/- u/s 271(1) (c) ignoring the facts that in the quantum proceeding the appellant has alrea
Brief facts of the case are that in the relevant assessment year, the assessee company was engaged in the business of Export of Readymade Garments. The assessee had filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs. 3,63,33,946/-. In the course