Brief facts of the instant case are that the assessee filed its return on 31.10.2002. On 28.3.2008 the Assessing Officer passed assessment order. Made disallowance u/s 10A of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) by partly all..
The petitioner joined as a teacher with MCD on 21.02.1994. Prior to that, the petitioner was working with the Department of Education, U.P, at Nainital. Clause 6 of Resolution No. 13891 dated 23.03.1987 of the respondent/ MCD reads as under:- “Eve..
Having regard to the facts stated above and keeping in view of the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the ITAT Rules as were considered by the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan (India) Ltd. reported in 38 ITR 320 (Del) and by the Hon’ble Madhya Prad..
Facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return qua the assessment year on14.11.2006 declaring total income of Rs. 25,88,000/-. Also claimed dividend of Rs. 3,03,110/- as exempt from tax u/s 10(34) of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer ..
It is the say of the petitioner that they applied for a certified copy of the order on the same date, which was received on 12.11.2010 but filed the appeal on 31.1.2011. Thus, it is not in dispute that the appeal is barred by time and is even beyond ..
The brief facts of the case are that assessee during the year was engaged in the business of solar photo-voltaic wafers, cells, modules and systems etc. It has filed its return of income on 30th October, 2002 declaring loss of Rs.7,47,14,276. The cas..
By an interim order dated 6th July, 2009 in the case of Canon India Pvt. Ltd., it was directed that there shall be stay of the impugned demand. The said interim order has continued. In fact, the writ petition filed by Canon India Private Limited was ..
The following are the brief facts which have given rise to the present petition. For the assessment years 2002-03 the petitioner filed a return of income in the status of a non-resident and declared property income and interest income therein. It wou..
The facts are that during the assessment proceedings, the A.O. noted that the assessee claimed depreciation @ 4O% on the block of assets of life saving equipment which included on addition of Rs.55 lakhs. The assessee furnished two bills in respect o..
“On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned CIT (A) erred in upholding the order passed by the learned Assessing Officer applying the provisions of section 50B of the Income tax Act to sale of assets of the M Seal Divisi..
Facts : Trust OP No.96 of 2002 was filed by the appellants who were beneficiaries of six trusts before the Principal District Judge - During the pendency of the OP, respondent Nos.1 to 14 and 16 filed interlocutory applications separately under Or..
The impugned order dated 05.10.2010 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in R.F.A.No. 597/2004 is under challenge in this appeal after grant of special leave at the instance of the plaintiff-appellant by which the ..
Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee an individual derives income from salary, business income and other sources. The assessee’s business premises as well as residential premises were searched u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (th..
DEDUCTION U/S 80-O:- the assessee was requested to prove their claim for deduction u/s. 80-O with documentary evidences in their favour. The assessee vide letter dt. 11.03.2002 has submitted as under (as extracted):- M/s Galana, Madagascar had app..
The Assessee is a finance and investment company. For the Assessment year under consideration for which the relevant previous year was the period between 1-4-1992 to 31-3-1993, the assessee company filed its return of income on 31.12.1993 declaring t..
Facts : The marriage of the A and B was solemnized and from the wedlock, two sons were born. A and B have been living separately and have been involved in various litigations, including a petition for divorce. The appellant ( father ), who is an ..
We have heard the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on record and the judgments cited by both sides. We find that the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of East India Housing and Land Development Trus..
Soon after the registration of the FIR referred to in the foregoing paragraph, the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on 24.9.2004. The aforesaid complaint was made against respondent no.2, Mrs.Ve..
These two stay applications are connected and issues are similar. These stay applications are preferred by assessees on the issue whether the long term capital gains and short term capital gains offered should be treated as business income or profess..
JCIT (OSD)-1(1), Room No.533 & 579, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) Vs. M/s. Good Value Marketing Co.Ltd. 3rd floor Indl. Assurance Bldg., Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 PAN NO: AAACG 4925 D (Respondent) ..
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
