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..
Facts : The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company and is engaged in the business as builder and developer. Return for the year under consideration was filed on 31.10.2007. The case of the assessee was selecte..
Facts - The appellant is a manufacturer of various components of television sets. The components are manufactured at its factory at Delhi. - The appellant was issued a show-cause notice dated 21.3.1990 by the Assistant Collector, New Delhi, where..
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company which filed return on 22.10.2003 and the return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 12.1.2004. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 and notice 148 of the Act was issued to the..
Facts: The department has filed this appeal for assessment year 2007-08 against order dated 2.11.2010 of ld CIT(A)-1, Mumbai. None appeared on behalf of assessee in spite of notice served through ld D.R. as per the report of the Assessing Officer..
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..
On May 4, 1992 Naib Tehsildar, Bithoor, Kanpur Nagar, allowed the application for mutation made by the appellant. Aggrieved by the order of the Naib Tehsildar, the present respondents preferred appeal under Section 210 of Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue A..
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..
The grounds raised read as under:- “1. Whether the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) was correct on facts and circumstances of the case and in law in deleting the disallowance of ` 8,76,435/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of advertise..
Two orders of the High Court of Karnataka dated 16th April, 2012 and 28th May, 2012 upholding the rejection of two separate applications made by the appellant herein for certified copies or in the alternative for inspection of certain unmarked and ..
Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked by a Gramin Bank on an issue on which no question of law arises for consideration. Facts are as follows: Smt. Khazani, the first respondent had availed of a loan from the appellant bank to purchase a buffalo a..
The facts at the assessment stage show that the assessee declared total loss of Rs. 1,96,610/- for the year under consideration. The assessee has also claimed exemption u/s. 10A of the Act at Rs. 96,02,867/-. The returned income was assessed at a los..
Facts, in brief, as relevant orders are that e-return declaring income of `1,50,37,034/- filed on 30th November, 2008 by the assessee, providing management services for large buildings, hospitals, factories etc., was selected for scrutiny with the se..
The plaintiff belongs to the “Times Group” which started 7 decades ago with the business of publishing news papers, journals, magazines and books. The plaintiff has also entered the field of e-commerce and the primary business is to provide the money..
The facts concerning the only issue in dispute are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of pneumatic conveying systems. The company is located at Ambarnath, beyond Kalyan wherein there is frequent power failures making it impossible t..
Notice of hearing was duly served upon the assessee vide RPAD on record along with the memo of defect. As the Bench did not function, the case was adjourned to 25.6.2012 and thereafter to 4.9.2012 for which both the parties were informed through noti..
On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) has erred in upholding the disallowance of `.2,073,610/-, being 25% of the dividend income, made by the AO under section 14A of the Act, without establishing any real nexus..
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
