Against ex parte dismissal of appeal: a) For that on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appellant’s appeal for alleged non-pursuing of the appeal. b) For that on the facts and circumstance..
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in deleting the addition of ` 1001500/- made u/s. 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 especially when the identity and credit worthiness of the share applicants an..
The brief facts of the above case are that while doing the scrutiny assessment the AO has added an amount of Rs.65,96,859/- under the head ‘unexplained loan creditors’ and Rs.2,44,256/- under the head interest paid on the above loan creditors by obse..
Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee filed a return declaring an income of Rs.53,46,390 for AY 2003-04 which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and accordingly a..
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in deleting the addition of ` 15,12,750/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investment on construction/ renovation of 1st floor ..
That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of maintenance expenses amounting to `7886/- and Depr..
That the Learned Assessing Officer has wrongly applied the valuation of Residential House as made by District Valuation Officer which is based on material rates prescribed by CPWD. With a contractors margin of 10% on supplying / fixing/ providing of ..
The Learned Director of Income Tax - (Exemption) has passed the order of Rejection of Application of Renewal of Exemption u/s 80G (5) (vi) of the Income Tax Act, arbitrarily on erroneous facts and superfluous reasons without bringing out the relevant..
We have considered the prayer for adjournment and have also gone through the orders and the Affidavit filed by the appellant company, we find that even the revenue authorities are aware that the assessee and its directors are involved in a number of ..
. The action of the learned DIT(E) rejecting grant of approval u/s 80-G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by referring to object of general public utility and not considering the applicability object of medical relief is illegal, arbitrary, unwarranted, un..
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in granting relief in respect of addition u/s 41(1) of Rs. 30,49,113/- on account of sundry creditors for which no confirmations were filed during the course of assessment procee..
The reference made by the Ld. A.O. to the Learned Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, TPO-I(I), New Delhi (hereinafter referred as ‘Ld. TPO’) suffers from jurisdictional error as the Ld. A.O. has not recorded any reason on the basis of which he re..
The facts of the case of the appellant are very simple in the sense that the assessee firm has debited a total of Rs.8,21,885/- to its Profit & Loss a/c which are routine expenses like expenditure for income tax assessments, trade marks, and other le..
The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that assessee received gift in the form of IMD of face value of US$ 1,50,000 from Mrs Hansa Agarwal, NRI, residing at Sharjah on 25.9.2005. Thereafter, the assessee prematurely encashed the said IMD o..
At the time of hearing, ld A.R. submitted that assessee be allowed to withdraw his appeal. Learned D.R submitted that he has no objection to accept the prayer of ld A.R. In view of submissions of ld representatives of parties, we accept assessee’s pr..
This appeal was fixed for hearing on 5.9.2012 and the same was informed to the assessee at the address as mentioned by the assessee against Item No. 10 of Form 36. However, on the date of hearing when this appeal was called upon for hearing, no one a..
Despite sending notice of hearing sufficiently in advance, neither assessee attended nor any adjournment request has been received. Thus, it is inferred that the assessee is not interested in prosecution of the present appeal..
Assessee was informed that matter will be heard on 17.09.2012. But, no one appeared on behalf of assessee. Nor there is any application for adjournment. In view of above, it appears that assessee is not interested in prosecuting this appeal. Hence th..
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of lower authorities. We find that during the year under consideration, the assessee has received dividend income amounting to Rs. 6,59,174/-. We find that the AO has applied provisions of Se..
The grounds raised read as under:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) is bad both in the eye of law and on facts. 2(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Comm..
Member Strength 9,49,684 and growing..
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
