The disputes in the present case centre around the election to Sports Working Committee of the Delhi District and Cricket Association (DDCA). Sports Working Committee is a smaller body within the DDCA‟s Executive Committee...
Facts indicate that in this case, the assessee was a proprietor of a boutique, which she was running at Naraina Vihar, New Delhi. She had inherited jewellery from her late mother and father from the locker which was relinquished to her vide a Relinqu..
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in quashing the assessment despite the specific saver provided under the Act by way of section 292BB because section 292BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pro..
The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1.That on the facts and in circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that once the profit is estimated after rejecting books of accounts, there is no scope for further disal..
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee wrote off a sum of Rs.19,48,743/- in its books of account towards Cafeteria expenses. On being called upon to explain as to how such deduction was claimed, the assessee submitted that the pr..
Service Tax was introduced for the first time under Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. Section 66 of the Act was the charging section and it provided for the levy of service tax at the rate of five per cent of the value of the taxable services. “Tax..
The grounds raised in the appeal by the Revenue read as under:- “1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition of ` 16,20,725/- by holding that the GP rate of 24.54% as shown by..
Despite sending notice of hearing sufficiently in advance, assessee did not appear nor any application for adjournment has been received at the time of hearing of the appeal, in spite of the fact that earlier also on 23.3.2011 and 10.8.2011, the appe..
The suit in question was filed by the appellant against the respondent for specific performance of agreement for sale dated 18th April, 1996 in respect of agricultural land admeasuring 1 H. 61Are. at a price of Rs.51,000/. It was the case of the appe..
In the instant appeal, there are total three grounds. Ground No. 3 is general in nature. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 raises the same issue. Both impugn the directions issued by Ld. CIT (A) to the AO to re-compute the deduction u/s 80HHC in accordance with th..
The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law in treating `35,49,091/- as revenue receipt being the amount received from the flat owners and / or tenants for replacement of capital assets and shown as sinking fund in accounts which was co..
The assessee is a company engaged in the business of syndication of loans, placement of bond and other financial instruments. The assessee received dividend income of Rs. 21,09,430/-, which did not form part of the total income under the Act. In view..
The disputes that arose between the parties were referred to the Arbitral Tribunal constituted under Article 34.3 of the PSC. The challenge by the Petitioner to a partial Award dated 31st March 2005 of the Arbitral Tribunal, before the High Court of ..
This case was listed for hearing before the Tribunal on 01-5-2012 and for this assessee was informed. Today i.e. on 01-5-2012 when the case was called on board, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any request for adjournment has been filed be..
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..
© 2025 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
