Adverting first to ground no.1 in the appeal , facts, in brief, as per relevant orders are that e-return declaring income of ``28,24,41,510/- filed on 29.09.2008 by the assessee, a foreign company having permanent establishment in India, was selected..
Briefly stated facts are that the AO has computed the interest u/s. 244A of the Act on the refundable amount without considering the interest incomes credited earlier in the tax computation statement as per the appeal effect order dated 21.06.2010. I..
It was the submission by the ld. AR that the show cause notice issued u/s 263 of the IT Act on 23.01.2012 had not mentioned which order was erroneous nor had he mentioned the error in the assessment order. It was the submission that the show cause no..
Facts, in brief, as per relevant orders are that e-return declaring income of ``32,780/- filed on 21.11.2006 by the assessee, engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading in home furnishing, after being processed u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax ..
The Income Tax authorities made re-assessments on 28.12.2007. The order was carried in Appeal. The Appellant had objected to the assumption of jurisdiction under Section-147 of the Act by the A.O. and also objected to the addition of certain amounts ..
By way of this appeal, the Assessing Officer has challenged correctness of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)’s order dated 04.11.2011 in the matter of order u/s. 154 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2005-06. The a..
Having regard to Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules, 1963 and following various decision of the Tribunal including in the case of C.I.T. vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del.) and the judgement of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the c..
This petition has been filed under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (the Act) by Sony India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as petitioner/transferor company), in respect of a scheme of arrangement (scheme for short) between the..
I have carefully considered the assessment order and the submissions made by the ld. AR in this regard. As per the facts of this case, the appellant company is a 100% subsidiary of the holding company M/s McCann-Erickson (India) Pvt. Ltd. M/s McCann ..
Brief facts are that the assessee is a cooperative society engaged in the construction of about 476 flats. It has claimed that due to dispute between different groups of members, complaints were made for violation of cooperative group housing society..
At the time of hearing the ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of assessee has submitted a copy of the adjournment petition made before ld.CIT(A) dated 09.02.2011 and submitted that the ld. CIT(A)’s observations that no applications for adjournment were ..
That without prejudice to Ground No. 1 above , the l earned Commissioner of Income Tax erred in holding that the Assessing Of f ice r failed to consider the applicability of provisions of sect ion 115JB of the Income Tax Act , 1961 when the tax payab..
That the Ld. CIT(A) was unjustified in confirming the addition of Notional Interest of Rs.7.18 Crore allegedly due from M/s. V. B. Desai & Co. without any cogent reasons. 1.1. That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that after the judgment of the Sp..
The Petitioner Trust owns the premises at E-10, Block E, Inner Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi (‘the premises’). The Petitioner leased out the said premises to the Respondent by a lease deed dated 25th April 2007. The lease was for an initial peri..
The fact of the case is the whether the assessee eligible to allowed deduction for bad debt written off...
At the time of hearing the ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 41 days. It was submitted that the assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay to which revenue has not raised a..
The circumstances of the case the Ld. C.l.T(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,48,90,366/- with processing charges without properly appreciating the facts that all the receipts were not on account processing charges and other fa..
For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) erred both in law and on facts in holding that the appellant was not entitled to deduction u/s 8OGGB only because the claim therefore was not made in the return or the revised re..
Assessee is a company established by the Govt. of Maharashtra and was incorporated on 31.5.2005 pursuant to the provisions of Section 131, 133 and 134 of Part-XII of the Electricity Act, 2003 relating to the reorganization of Maharashtra State Electr..
The brief facts of the case are that search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 10.5.2007 in M/s. U. Flex Ltd., Group of cases. The assessee was also covered under the search operation. In order to giv..
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
