The challenge to the impugned order (Annexure P-8) is on the ground that the earlier proceedings under Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, initiated against the petitioner were dropped vide order of 4th May, 2000 (Annexure P-2) and in vie..
The petitioners were working in the National Institute of Health and Family Welfare (NIHFW). The claim of the petitioners before the Tribunal was that they were governed by the University Grants Commission (UGC) package of 24.12.1998 whereby the age ..
The fact of the is the applicability of provision of sec 271 (1) (C) of the Act.after disclosure of the fact in Balance Sheet...
We can find the facts of the case after considering the above as well as on law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming disallowance of provision for bad and doubtful debts to the extent of Rs.63,45,02,440 claimed by the appellant under the first..
It is the plain and unqualified obligation of every person against, or in respect of whom an order is made by a court of competent jurisdiction to obey it unless and until that order is discharged. The uncompromising nature of this obligation is show..
Assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that applying Rule 8D for the year under consideration is against the ratio laid down by the Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs D..
if the assessee through proper application can satisfy the Tribunal for such non appearance on the date of hearing, the Tribunal may at its discretion recall this order...
This appeal, by special leave, is preferred by the Patna High Court, through its Registrar General, against the judgment and order dated 21st May, 2010, rendered by a Division Bench of the High Court in the writ petition filed by respondent no.1. In ..
In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to grant exemption u/s. 11 of the IT Act to the assessee when the status of the assessee that was held as “AOP” for the reasons as discussed in t..
Facts, in brief, as per relevant orders are that return declaring income of ``12,75,862/- on a/c of short term capital gains and nil business income filed on 30.09.2008 by the assessee, after being processed u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (he..
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in disallowing an ad-hoc amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- towards gift expenses on the alleged ground that the gift expenses are not incurred wh..
Before us, both the learned Representatives agree that the tax effect in the Revenue’s appeal is less than ` 3,00,000. As per CBDT Instruction no.3 of 2011, dated 9th February 2011, the appeal before the Appellate Rishabh Investments P. Ltd. Tribuna..
The instant appeal concerns, two of the several purchase orders placed by the respondent „Milkfood Ltd.‟ upon M/s.Dany Dairy Food Engineer Ltd. (DDFE) i.e. the purchase orders dated May 25, 1988 and September 10, 1988, for due performance of which, a..
Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of Soya Oil. In the case of Ruchi Soya Group, a search and seizure action u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (the Act) was carried out by th..
We find that the only grievance of the Revenue is that the amendment brought in the Income Tax Act u/s. 40(a(ia) was only effective from 1.4.2010 and not retrospective in nature..
Facts: Vineshwari along with her brother, ,was having a bath in the water. Kali Charan and Ganeshi, PW 2, were grazing their cattle in the field situate at a short distance. The accused-appellant, a resident of the village, cajoled Vineshwari to a..
The first Respondent (the Claimant) by virtue of the provision of Order XLI Rule 22 CPC can resist the Appeal for reduction of compensation on other grounds without filing of any Cross Appeal or Cross Objections. The question of resisting the Appeal ..
The brief facts of this issue are that while doing the scrutiny assessment AO observed that “the assessee firm vas engaged in the business of developing and promoting. During the course of hearing, Sri Chakraborty, A/r of the firm, furnished various ..
An application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the IT Rules, whereby the AR filed copy of Bank A/c, passport and professional license issued to the firm in Dubai where Shri Sunil Bhatia, the Director of the appellant company is..
Facts : Gajendra Jagatsinh Jadeja, was residing in Plot No. 1 in Virbhadranagar Society. As in the City Survey Office record, the name of his grandfather stood recorded in respect of the premises in question, the complainant in order to obtain the ..
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
