The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the relevant year on 31-10-2007, admitting a tax liability of Rs.8,95,556/- under the Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) provisions, per section 115JB of the Act. A tax credit..
On the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A)- XXVIII, New Delhi erred in deleting the addition of ` 1,54,90,828/- as a question of law in involved in this case i.e., whether non-compete fee/commission is to be assessed as business income or..
The facts in brief. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of running of hospitals under the brand name “Metro” in various parts of the country. The company has high expertise in operating and managing Nursing Homes/Hospitals specially wit..
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return for AY 2006-07 on 31.3.2007 declaring an income of Rs.2,45,570 and the return was processed and subsequently selected for scrutiny on the basis of AIR information received. ..
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return declaring an income of Rs. 1,82,480 for AY 2005-06. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and a notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 11..
Facts, in brief, as per relevant orders are that return declaring loss of ``5,51,91,000/- filed on 29.09.2008 by the assessee, carrying on the business of financing, leasing and investment activities, after being processed on 05.08.2009 u/s 143 (1) o..
Brief facts are: The assessee was an employee of Bill and Milinda Gates Foundation, USA (“BMGF” ), USA and was appointed to work with the liaison office of BMGF, New Delhi as Director in its India AIDS initiative program. Assessee could not file his ..
Facts, in brief, as per relevant orders are that the return declaring income of ``4,29,40,331/- filed on 27.09.2008 by the assessee, engaged in the business of import and trading in yarn and knitting needles besides generation of wind power, was sele..
In his appeal, as many as twelve grounds are raised by the assessee. However, at the time of hearing before us, it is stated by the learned counsel that the major dispute in this appeal is with regard to the addition made under Section 68 of the Inco..
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in deleting the disallowances of Rs.707376/- made by the A.O. on account of discount of sale ignoring the fact that said discount ..
Ground of appeal relates to the grievance of the appellant against the action of the Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs.1,12,53,000/- on account of warranty and other expenses. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that, the identica..
The fact of the case explained in following points “1. FOR THAT the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Jalpaiguri acted unlawfully in upholding the assessment order framed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Ld. Income Tax Officer..
In allowing credit of MAT of the previous year u/s 115JAA at `.56,05,585/-. (Pl. see Sl. No.22 of Intimation) only as against the sum of `.63,51,128/- paid as per Schedule Part B of TTI of ITR 6 of previous year resulting in not allowing the credit o..
Facts indicate that the assessee is a partnership firm of two partners and doing the business of export of hardware items. The assessee purchases raw material and after assembling and doing the job work, the same are exported to foreign countries and..
Facts indicate that the assessee is a company incorporated in Australia. It was engaged in the business of providing equipment on hiring and manpower etc. for exploration and production of mineral oil and natural gas. During the year under appeal. th..
It appears that the assessee is not interested in getting the appeal prosecuted. Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Tukojirao Holkar Vs CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP), while dismissing the reference made at the instance of the assessee in default..
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..
Facts, in brief, as per the relevant orders are that return declaring income of `1,92,16,940/- filed on 29-09-2009 by the assessee, providing consultancy of automotive components, was selected for scrutiny with the service of notice u/s 143(2) of the..
Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee is a commercial bank having its Head Office in U.A.E. The assessee has two branches in India i.e. Mumbai and Bangalore. It is involved in normal banking activities including financing of foreign ..
There are several ground raised by Revenue as well as assessee please check the judgment to obtain the fact of the case. ..
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
