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...
That on the facts & circumstances of the case of the appellant the order of the Learned CIT(A) in disallowing deduction of Section 80HHC on total sale proceeds of DEPB instead of Profit as mentioned in Section 28(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is h..
We have heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the material placed before us. The facts of the case are that both the assessees are minor children of Shri Kamal Piyush. During the accounting year relevant to the assessment year under consi..
Ground Nos.1 to 4 of the assessee’s appeal are against the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has recorded that in this case, the original return furnished by the asse..
The return of income was filed on 31.03.2008 declaring income at Rs.1,01,784/-. The assessment was finalized u/s 143(3) on 29.12.2009 by making an addition of Rs.12,84,516/- on account of bogus sundry creditors and Rs.48,540/- on account of concealed..
Non presense of the appellant without taking adjournment...
The CIT(A) has erred on facts and in the law in cancelling the order dated 14.6.2011 passed by the ACIT (TDS), Noida and in directing that provisions contained in sec. 194C is applicable on the payment made by M/s Container Corporation of India Ltd. ..
That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in holding that the TPO was not justified in including other income with regard to computation of arm’s length price for royalty..
We have heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the material placed before us. The penalty has been levied in respect of the two disallowances made by the Assessing Officer under Section 43B:- (i) Disallowance of interest amounting to `7..
This is an assessee’s appeal. The following norms are raised at the outset. Learned counsel for the assessee contends that assessee is a civil contractor, regularly assessed tax. During this year 18 creditors having calculated outstanding amount of R..
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 02.09.2011 of CIT-XIII, New Delhi pertaining to 2006-07 assessment year. At the time of hearing no one was present on behalf of the assessee as such the appeal was passed over. In the se..
The appeal was originally fixed for hearing on 10.9.2012 on which date assessee’s counsel took date and the case was adjourned to 17.1.2013. On 17.1.2013, again counsel of the assessee took adjournment and case was fixed for 22.5.2013 i.e. today. Nob..
The petitioners carry on business, inter alia, of manufacturing dye-stuffs and dye-intermediates. In the manufacture of dye-stuffs and dye-intermediates one of the raw materials used is a product known as "Naphthalene". The main commercial source of ..
The appeal was originally fixed for hearing on 10.9.2012 on which date assessee’s counsel took date and the case was adjourned to 17.1.2013. On 17.1.2013, again counsel of the assessee took adjournment and case was fixed for 22.5.2013 i.e. today. Nob..
In this case the assessee is a Company and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of building materials. During the course of assessment Assessing Officer observed that it was noted from the details of commission on sales that there ..
The appellant is engaged in export of handicraft and shawl etc. and local sale of software. The assessee has income from business, capital gains and income from other sources during the AY 2008-09 and the same sources of income as were in earlier yea..
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 45,00,000/- being unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961..
That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant company’s case the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in law in upholding the order of DCIT, Circle 1(1), New Delhi in treating a sum of Rs. 36,00,000/- representing income from joint ..
© 2025 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
