The facts in brief are that the assessee for the assessment year 1999-00 had declared long term capital loss of Rs.4,01,75,013/- on sale of shares which had been set off against short term capital gain from sale of shares of Rs.3,98,40,597/- and thus..
It is alleged that on 02.02.2010 Craig Mcleod grossly misbehaved on campus with two Professors of the University. As a result of the incident, a First Information Report was lodged with the police and the Proctorial Board of the University took an em..
The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 47,59,846/- being payment made to the sub-contractors on the ground that identification of these sub-contractors are not proved without properly appreciating the facts of the case and law applic..
Facts indicate that Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1,98,64,646/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act against which assessee preferred appeal in which action of he Assessing Officer in regard to addition u/s 68 of the Act was challenge..
These cases were listed for hearing before the Tribunal on 06-8-2012 and for this assessee was informed. Today i.e. on 06-8-2012 when the case was called on board, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any request for adjournment has been filed..
For this purpose the petitioner says that he has obtained requisite permission including a NOC from the Organ Transplantation Committee constituted by the State of U.P, and a NOC from the District Magistrate, AGRA. Reliance is also placed by the peti..
We first take up the dispute relating to additions of unsecured loans under section 68 of the Act. The AO during the assessment proceedings noted that the assessee who was engaged in the business of film production and marketing, had declared unsecur..
The Learned CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the amount offered during Survey u/s 133A carried out on 13/02/07 was not offered as any cash or other investments were recovered during the survey, but as there were mere entries without any narrat..
As per a Supreme Court decision, objection to notice must be disposed of first and only thereafter assessment can be proceeded. The objections dated 16.3.2010 were disposed of by Income-tax Officer on 22.10.2010 and notice u/s 143(2) is dated 15.9.20..
The Inquiry Officer gave a report opining that there was an interpolation in the school leaving certificate for the reason it was proved that in the school record the date of birth of the petitioner was 01.11.1954. As per the school record, this was ..
The assessee is a partnership firm. It developed a residential housing project by the name of “Surendra Estate” at Chuna Bhatti, Bhopal. The assessee got the approval for the project from Bhopal Municipal Corporation on 07.05.2003. The project was st..
In this case Assessing Officer noted that assessee had not attended proceedings in response to the notices dated 12.11.2009 and 23.12.2009, even after their proper service upon the assessee and has also not furnished any explanation. Assessing Office..
Appearing in support of the said application, copies of which have been served on all the interested parties, including the members of the Implementation Committee, represented by Mr. P.P. Rao and Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior advocates, Mr. Sushi..
Assessee took up the matter in appeal and challenged the action of Assessing Officer and it was submitted before first appellate authority that the assessee is a proprietor of M/s Ceco Electronics and is engaged in the business of transformer manufac..
The facts indicate that original assessment was completed on 29.03.2004 and it was reopened by recording reasons on 26.03.2008. As per assessee, there was no failure to disclose all material facts and since reopening was done on the basis of retrospe..
The notice was given to assessee fixing the date of hearing on 01.08.2012 through notice board. But no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. Nor there is any application for adjournment. In view of above, it appears that assessee is not interested ..
During the assessment proceeding the AO found that the assessee had shown dividend income of Rs.5,60,809/- which was claimed as exempt. AO found that the assessee had not allocated any expenditure incurred by him towards earning of the tax-exempt-div..
The facts in brief needs to be stated for answering the issues raised. They are: In the case of Purbanchal Cables (C.A. No. 2348 of 2003), the supplier is the manufacturer of Aluminium Conductors Steel Reinforced (for short “ACSR”) for various specif..
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of Thermoplastic material and Phenolic Moulding Powers etc. For the year under consideration, return of income was filed on 31.10.2004 declaring total ..
By this miscellaneous application, the assessee is seeking recall of the order of the Tribunal dated 13-12-2010 passed ex-party in ITA No. 771/Mum/2009 on the ground that there was a miss-communication about the date of hearing by the articled clerk ..
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
