The facts as stated in the order of Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) are that the assessee is in the business of inbound tour operation and it provides services to foreign tourists visiting the Indian subcontinent. The assessee does not have any b..
No one was present on behalf of the assessee and no adjournment petition was also moved on behalf of assessee. At the time of hearing before us two defects were found in the receipt. Firstly the appeal is not signed by the Managing Director and secon..
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in :- Deleting the addition of ` 6,33,212/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of Long Term Capital Gain u/s. 50C(1) of the Income Tax..
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..
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...
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..
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..
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..
At the time of hearing before us, the ld. DR appearing on behalf of revenue by pointing out the various observations made by AO and the ld. CIT(A) contended that ld.CIT(A) has given only 7 days for giving the Remand Report in respect of unexplained l..
Brief facts relevant for adjudication of grounds No.1 & 2 are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing harness testers and measuring instruments. From the perusal of the Schedule of fixed assets forming part of the bala..
This case was listed for hearing before the Tribunal on 17-5-2012 and for this assessee was informed. Today i.e. on 17-5-2012 when the case was called on board, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any request for adjournment has been filed be..
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation @ 60% on ITG Networking equipments as against 25% allowed by the Assessing Officer..
At the time of hearing before us, it is stated by the learned counsel for the assessee that in this case, the notice of hearing was served by affixture. Thus, it is clear that no notice was actually received by the assessee ever. He further pointed o..
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
