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..
the relevant facts as available from the concerned orders are that the assessee, during the year, was engaged in the business of plying of trucks/tankers to various oil companies and derived income from house property also. He declared income on nine..
The brief facts about the case are that assessee is an individual and she filed her return of income for the Assessment Year 2007-08 declaring total income of Rs.1,66,425/-. The income consisted of salary income from Shashi International Pvt. Ltd. in..
The appellant has raised following grounds of appeal:- (1) “The learned CIT(A) has grossly erred on the facts of the case and in law upholding disallowance of actual incurred expenditure of Rs.3,20,514/- being the management fee paid to ICICI Prud..
This case was listed for hearing before the Tribunal on 15-10-2012 and for this assessee was informed. Today i.e. on 15-10-2012 when the case was called on board, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any request for adjournment has been filed ..
These are the applications for seeking certain directions in view of the subsequent developments after the order passed on 5.7.2012. We have heard Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Mukul Rohtagi and Mr. Jaideep..
The present case is identical and similar to the issue decided by COD’s and the amendment made through the Finance Act, 2007 wherein it has been provided that tax shall not be deducted on payments of commission or brokerage payable by Bharat Sanchar ..
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
