Briefly stated, assessee is an Actress and showed gross receipts of `30,92,000/- in her income expenditure statement. She has shown an amount of `35,75,000/- as advance received. AO on noticing that assessee is following cash system of accounting bro..
After informing that matter will be heard on a particular date, 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 this a..
For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the assessment order passed was in violation of principles of natural justice hence is bad in law and be quashed. (2) For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Assessing Office..
The main fact of the case is that there is no provision in section 115JB to allow deduction under section 54EC of the Act. Computation of book profit is provided under section 115JB, which is a separate code by itself, wherein the first step is to co..
The facts filed before the first appellate authority indicate that the assessee was retired from Ministry of Defence as Defence Estate Officer long back, from where he was getting his pension. After retirement he had started his own business of sale ..
That on facts and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding disallowance of additional depreciation to the tune of Rs. 4,05,12,853 and Rs. 1,52,73,164 on plant and machinery and tippers respectively without appreciating that the appellant was engaged in ..
We find that the AO has not given any reason for disallowing the claim. We also find that the AO has simply followed the findings of earlier assessment years. As similar additions in earlier assessment year has been deleted by Ld. CIT(A) which has be..
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) was correct in holding that consultancy fees paid to Singapore based foreign company were not chargeable to tax in India, as well as the applicability of section 40(a)(ia) ..
The learned counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that in the immediately preceding assessment years, Assessing Officer has accepted the existence of PE as well as the profit attributable to such PE. Hence, income of the assessee has ..
Having regard to Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules, 1963 and following various decisions of the Tribunal including in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del.) and the judgment of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case..
None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the appeal was called for hearing nor any request for adjournment was filed. Earlier also none appeared on behalf of the assessee on 21.2.2012. In these circumstances, it , therefore, appears that the asse..
The facts of the case for assessment year 2003-04 are that the assessee filed its return on 28.11.2003 showing total income of ` 2,45,83,770/-. The assessee is tax - resident of the USA and it is earning income of the nature of the royalty from Yum R..
At the threshold, we note that tax effect in this case is less than `3 lacs fixed by the CBDT for filing appeal before the tribunal. As per Instruction No. 3/2011 (F.No. 279/Misc./142/2007-ITJ) dated 09.02.2011 issued by the CBDT, the tax effect for ..
Brief facts of the case explained below: The assessee moved applications u/s 12A(1)(aa) and U/s 80G(5)(vi) of the Income Tax Act. The applications were accompanied by a copy of trust deed dated 27-12-2010 to the CIT, Rohtak on 9-3-2011. CIT calle..
From the observation of the Judgment we can find the fact that the interest paid by the assessee on borrowed fund can claim as deduction only if the fund is utilized for business purpose...
This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT (A)- IV, New Delhi, dated 17.02.2012, relevant to assessment year 2008-09, whereby confirmation of addition of Rs.2,56,019/- on account of estimated expenditure u/s 14A of th..
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.9,96,50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 being the unexplained share capital and share premium of Rs.1,0..
From the judgment it is cleared that the assessee is not interested in the prosecution of this appeal. Considering the facts and keeping in view the provisions of Rule 19 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, as were considered in the cases of ..
None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the appeal was called for hearing nor any request for adjournment was filed. Even before the Assessing Officer[AO in short], none appeared while last notice dated 9.12.2010 issued u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of th..
Opinion amongst different benches of the Tribunal in respect of scope of assessment framed u/s 153A, i.e. whether addition can be made on items in respect of which no incriminating material is found in search. The decisions in favour and against of t..
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
