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
The brief facts of the case are that return of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. The assessee had declared income from house property, share of profit, remuneration from one firm and income from other sources. In this case AIR information was r
Vide this appeal, the assessee has raised its objections against denial of registration u/s 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. At the outset, the Ld. AR invited our attention to appellate order passed by ITAT, Delhi Bench-F in ITA No.1707 vide order da
That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in law and on the facts by allowing relief of Rs. 13,58,98,217/- by holding that the Transfer Pricing Officer’s (TPO) action of apportionment of Global Cricket Council contribution in the ratio of
That the learned Additional Director of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing Officer-II(2), New Delhi (Ld. TPO)/ Ld. AO have erred both in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs.3,97,10,488/- on account of alleged understatement of arm’s length price i
These appeals are preferred by the assessee against separate orders of CIT(A) in quantum assessment and penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relating to assessment year 2007-08. First we shall take ITA No. 843/Del/2011 against t
The assessee is a company and is engaged in the business of manufacture of fertilizers, chemicals, soya oil etc. It manufactures and sells single super phosphate, Sulphuric Acid in its three fertilizers unit situated at Nimrani (MP), Jhansi (UP) and
The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law and on facts in deleting addition of Rs. 1,93,660/- on account of difference in cash deposit in bank account and cash sales, ignoring the cash deposits in bank account exceeded cash sales and the assessee
I have considered the submission of the appellant and gone through the balance sheet, trading and profit loss account and cash flow statement. The Assessing Officer has considered the business income to the extent of Rs.5,990/- on the basis of tradin
The brief facts of the case are that assessee company has purchased an existing unit being run by M/s Motherson Sumy Systems Limited (for short MSSL). A part of the business of M/s MSSL comprising of an undertaking which was engaged in manufacturing
Brief fats are: The assessee is a charitable Society, registered u/s 12A of the I.T. Act and runs Sanskriti School, at Chankya Puri, New Delhi. Assessment order for assessment year 2007-08 was passed on 4-9-2009 by allowing exemption u/s 11, assessin
The assessee is a private limited company. During the year, it was engaged in the business of import, export, trade and otherwise deal in food, canned and tinned processed foods and foodstuffs and consumable provisions for human or animal consumption
The brief facts of the case are that return of income was filed on 09.02.2006, declaring Nil income. As per assessment order, the assessee is registered u/s 12A and is also availing the benefit of section 80-G. The trust was made on 24th day of Octob
That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeal) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.30,00,000/- on account of unsecured loan on mechanical basis even though all transactions in the account are by account payee che
A perusal of the record shows that the assessee furnished a return electronically on 30.11.2006 by declaring NIL income and claimed a refund of Rs.41.04.516/- out of TDS and self assessment tax. On the basis of selection of case under scrutiny notice
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of commission paid amounting to Rs. 16,80,000/-. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made u/s 69
That CIT(A) has erred in law in not appreciating that notice issued and served under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act is beyond the stipulated period and order passed in pursuance to such notice is without jurisdiction and bad in law.
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Ld CIT(A) dated 4.10.2010. The grounds of assessee was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against enhancement.
These two writ petitions have been filed as Public Interest Litigations for mainly declaring sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 as ultra vires the Constitution.