The respondent-assessee is a firm which came into existence on 25th June, 1992. On 23rd February, 1996, a search operation under Section 132 of the Act was carried out at the premises of another concern, viz. M/s A.R. Mercantile Private Limited. Duri..
The assessee is a public limited company, classified by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) as a non-banking finance company. It is engaged in the business of hire purchase, leasing and real estate etc. The vehicles, on which depreciation was claimed, ar..
The appellant herein, Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as `the insurer’), is a government company, which is in the business of insuring exporters. Respondent, M/s Garg Sons International, on 23.3.1995 purcha..
The appellant, an Export Oriented Unit (for short “EOU”), is engaged in the manufacture of all wool and poly-wool worsted grey fabrics. It was granted the status of EOU by the Government of India, Ministry of Industry, Department of Industrial Develo..
The facts very briefly are that the appellant-bank sanctioned Derivatives/Forward Contracts facility to respondent no.1 upto a limit of Rs.2,00,00,000/- (rupees two crores) only for the purpose of hedging foreign currency exposures by its letter date..
Briefly stated, the material facts giving rise to the appeal, are as follows: Pursuant to an inspection by the officials of the enforcement Commissionerate, Chennai-II at the sales outlet of the respondent (hereinafter referred as “the assessee”), re..
Having regard to Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules, 1963 and following various decisions of the Tribunal including in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del.) and the judgment of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case..
The revenue has questioned the first appellate order on the following grounds: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.21,63,393/- being the amount receivable from M/s Adk..
Assessee company in this case is engaged in the business of manufacturing, designing and fabrication of aluminum and architectural products. In this case it was noted that the assessee has shown ` 3,87,74,848/- as mobilization advance under the head ..
Facts in brief:- The assessee is a Private Limited Company. It filed its return of income on 26.9.2009 declaring a loss of Rs.26,498/-. The assessee company had dividend income of Rs.41,82,220/-, which claimed as exempt under Section 10(34) of the In..
the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in rejecting the appeal filed by the appellant against the assessment order dated 23 December, 2009 by alleging non appearance of the appellant and assuming that the..
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacture and trade in colour TVs, air-conditioners, refrigerators, microwave oven, washing machine, compressors, vacuum cleaners etc. It emerges out from the..
Facts, in brief, as per relevant orders are that return declaring income of ``1,12,277/- beside agricultural income of ``1,05,000/-,filed on 9th July, 2007 by the assessee, was selected for scrutiny with the service of a notice u/s 143(2) of the Inco..
The assessee has questioned first appellate order on several grounds involving two issues. Firstly as to whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the AO in treating and apportioning the entire foreign traveling expenses of Rs. 19,4..
Despite sending notice by the registered post AD sufficiently in advance, assessee did not appear nor any request for adjournment has been received. The notice has also not been received back unserved. Therefore, it is inferred that assessee is not i..
Impugned order of 31st May, 2011 upholds petitioner’s eviction from ground floor and mezzanine floor of premises No.12/90 at Cannaught Place, New Delhi (henceforth referred to as the ‘subject premises’). Respondent- a nationalized bank had purchased ..
Fact of the case is depreciation on block of asset...
In support of ground No. 3 the Ld. AR submitted that the counsel of the assessee had been appearing before the Ld. CIT(A) to cooperate with the first appellate authority and only on 15.3.2010 the counsel of the assessee could not appear before the Ld..
During the year the assessee company had raised unsecured loans of ` 96,65,438/-, the source of which remains unverified in view of the facts that no details with regard to the same is available. Hence, the same are disallowed and added back to the i..
In the present application, the assessee has contended that in the aforesaid order, a typographical mistake has crept in inasmuch as in para 10 of our said order, we have wrongly extracted the portion of para 3 of the CIT (A)’s order, taking it to be..
© 2025 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
