The appellants in both the appeals were employed as teacher in the respondent no.2 Delhi Public School, Mathura Road, New Delhi and on attaining the age of 60 years on 31st July, 2010 and 30th April, 2010 respectively, were retired from service. Thei..
Initially, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of a writ petition being WP(C) No. 5877/2001 which was disposed of by an order dated 21.05.2002. Primarily, in that writ petition, the petitioner had sought release of the terminal benefits o..
These two applications were heard on 1.3.2001. The learned Sr.Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Mitra, submitted as follows: At the time when the petition was heard, there was no document available with the petitioners to support their claim that t..
Briefly stated, the facts of the case as set out in the writ petition are that in May, 2011, the petitioner had passed the intermediate examination from the CBSE Board. On 02.11.2011, the petitioner had applied for IIT JEE-2011 in the reserved catego..
The grounds raised read as under: “(i) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing the order u/s. 154 even though there was no error apparent from..
The respondent workman was appointed as a conductor with the appellant on 2nd September, 1989. He was on 24th June, 1993 served with a charge sheet for not issuing tickets to the passengers inspite of collecting the fare. Departmental inquiry was hel..
The facts of the instant case, in brief, are that the petitioner incorporated a company in the year 1995 under the name and style of Maha Bhairav Plantation Pvt. Ltd. having its registered office at 308, Vinay Place, 11, Ashoka Marg, Lucknow-226001. ..
The allegations of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) against the petitioner are that acting on a specific information that a consignment of ketamine was being attempted to be exported to Canada based consignee, concealed in misc. goods by a D..
Facts: Applicants, herein had filed Writ Petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh challenging the constitutional validity of Madhya Pradesh Niji Vyavsayik Shikshan Sanstha Adhiniyam, 2007 and the Rules framed thereunder. - Writ Petition was..
Facts of the case is that the assessee filed return of income for the relevant Assessment Year 2005-06 on 28.10.2005 disclosing ‘Nil’ total income after claiming deduction u/s. 10B of the Act of Rs.6,30,71,257/-. Assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act was..
We have heard the learned DR and the learned counsel for the assessee. The learned counsel for the assessee filed written submissions with a copy orders pages 1-20. The interesting point is that the revenue filed misc. petition in connection with IT(..
Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in holding that duty entitlement pass book credit was cash assistance within the meaning of clause (iiib) to Section 28 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the entire amount including the premium receiv..
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 83,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on protective basis in respect of income from alleged undisclosed sources on the basis of the c..
We have heard both the parties and gone through the facts of the case as also the aforesaid decision relied upon by the ld. DR. A mere glance at the impugned order reveals that the order passed by the ld. CIT (A) is cryptic and grossly violative of o..
Facts: In the year 2002, for setting up a new business, appellant was in need of substantial finance and for that purpose, he approached respondent No.1-Company through its Director Mr. Rajendra Kumar Aggarwal, who is his co-brother. Respondent N..
TDS deducted but not deposited within the time limit prescribed u/s. 201 of the Act. The same was deposited on 15.02.2006. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee could not contribute anything which supports his case. But after going through the records, we..
Section 41(1) of the Act, as it existed at the relevant time, was as under:- “41. Profits chargeable to tax.—(1) Where an allowance or deduction has been made in the assessment for any year in respect of loss, expenditure or trading liability inc..
Following effective grounds of appeal:- 1. That the ld.CIT(A) had erred in deleting disallowance of Rs.8,66,798/- as disallowed by the AO which was claimed by the assessee as business loss. 2. That the ld.CIT(A) had erred in deleting the additi..
section 10A, the eligible business (appellant’s branch office in this case) is to be considered as a separate entity and transfer of goods or services by eligible business to/from other business of the assessee are to be treated as if such transfer h..
Brief facts are that the assessee is a private limited company carrying on business of dealing in shares, operation in share futures and commodity futures. The assessee also advanced unsecured loans to other parties and derived interest income there ..
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
