That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant company’s case the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in law in upholding the order of DCIT, Circle 1(1), New Delhi in treating a sum of Rs. 36,00,000/- representing income from joint ..
That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not giving full benefit of expenditure as claimed by the assessee and has further erred in directing to ld.AO to allow the expenditure only to th..
The relevant facts of the case are that in the year under consideration the assessee who is wholly owned subsidiary of Honeywell International Inc. Returned ncome of Rs.15,63,19,080/- by way of filing return on 30th November, 2006. The assessee compa..
The issue of cash purchases was also examined in the preceding years. While during the course of the assessment proceedings for the assessee had categorically submitted that the raw materials i.e carcass had been purchased through agents, as also the..
Non-deduction of tax source u/s 192 of the Act in respect of non-inclusion of performance incentive for the purposes of calculating exemption u/s 10(13A) of the Act; and (ii) Non deduction of TDS u/s 194J from the payment made for the use of telecomm..
We draw the attention of the ld. DR regarding the tax effect on the deletion of addition of Rs.9,05,643/- which is less than Rs. 3.00 lakh. This position is admitted by the ld. D.R. Therefore, as per the Instruction No. 3/2011 dated 09.02.2011 the re..
At the time of hearing before us, it was stated by the learned counsel that the DIT(Exemptions), vide his order dated 29th September, 2010, refused to register the trust. However, subsequently, the same DIT(Exemptions), vide order dated 6th April, 20..
At the time of hearing before us, it was stated by the learned counsel that in both the years, despite huge additions, the assessed income is loss. That the set off of this loss has never been claimed in the subsequent years because in the subsequent..
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.15,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of I.T.Act, 1961 in respect of unexplained cash credits without appreciating the fact that the ..
That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer had erred in invoking provision of section 50C of the I.T. Act thereby computing the long term capital gain at Rs. 74,15,381/-. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) is al..
However at the time of hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessee. The appeal was passed over twice. Despite the same, neither the assessee was present nor any request for adjournment has been placed before the Bench. The record shows that..
Brief facts of the case are that assessee was running a proprietary business as whole seller at Nainital. It had filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs. 1,90,000/-. The Assessing Officer, vide order sheet entry dated 19th August, 200..
The assessee has raised various grounds in its appeal. However, at the time of hearing before us, the main contention of the learned counsel for the assessee was for setting aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A). He subm..
On the facts and circumstances of the case the ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,26,248/- made on account of jewellery by ignoring that no investment in jewellery was disclosed and no wealth tax return was filed. On the facts and circu..
However, at the time of hearing before us, it was pointed out by the learned counsel that the learned CIT(A) had allowed only part relief and, therefore, against the addition sustained at `3,45,914/-, the assessee had filed appeal before the ITAT. Th..
We draw the attention of the ld. DR regarding the tax effect on the deletion of addition of Rs.9,05,643/- which is less than Rs. 3.00 lakh. This position is admitted by the ld. D.R. Therefore, as per the Instruction No. 3/2011 dated 09.02.2011 the re..
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the addition of Rs.4,070302/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of car maintenance expenses.”..
The appeal was fixed for hearing on 21.11.2011 when the case was adjourned at the request of the assessee’s counsel to 22.03.2012. Thereafter, the Bench did not function and the hearing was fixed on 25.07.2012. On 25.07.2012, the matter was adjourned..
At the time of hearing before us, the learned counsel for the assessee argued at length. He stated that there was search at Chaurasia Group of cases. However, there was no search operation at the premises of the assessee company. The Assessing Office..
The facts necessary for the purpose of appreciating the controversy involved in the appeal are as follows: The Bangalore Club (hereinafter referred to as the “assessee”), the appellant herein, is an unincorporated Association of Persons, (AOP). I..
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
