On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), CIT(A) is bad, both in the eyes of law and on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both ..
Facts, in brief, as per relevant orders are that return declaring income of ``1,19,38,802/- filed on 28.10.2005 by the assessee, a partnership firm carrying on the profession of Ophthalmology surgeons, was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, ..
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has declared long term capital gains of `.1,28,258,902/- out of which long term capital gain, of `.3,75,902/- pertained to listed shares. The entire LTCG was claimed as exempt under section 10(38) includi..
facts, in brief, as per relevant orders are that return declaring nil income, after set off of business loss of ``568,87,510/- , filed on 31.10.2005 by the assessee, engaged in the business of publishing of telephone directory with yellow pages, was ..
In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd.; 38 ITD 320 (Del), the appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal, which was fixed for hearing. But on the date of hearing nobody represented the revenue/appellant nor any co..
The learned Assessing Officer has erred in disallowing Rs. 25.00 lacs, on ad hoc basis, towards share trading expenses on erroneous assumption that the appellant has incurred expenditure towards speculation business and allocated on proportion basis ..
The facts in brief are that the assessee for the assessment year 1999-00 had declared long term capital loss of Rs.4,01,75,013/- on sale of shares which had been set off against short term capital gain from sale of shares of Rs.3,98,40,597/- and thus..
The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 47,59,846/- being payment made to the sub-contractors on the ground that identification of these sub-contractors are not proved without properly appreciating the facts of the case and law applic..
Facts indicate that Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1,98,64,646/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act against which assessee preferred appeal in which action of he Assessing Officer in regard to addition u/s 68 of the Act was challenge..
These cases were listed for hearing before the Tribunal on 06-8-2012 and for this assessee was informed. Today i.e. on 06-8-2012 when the case was called on board, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any request for adjournment has been filed..
We first take up the dispute relating to additions of unsecured loans under section 68 of the Act. The AO during the assessment proceedings noted that the assessee who was engaged in the business of film production and marketing, had declared unsecur..
The Learned CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the amount offered during Survey u/s 133A carried out on 13/02/07 was not offered as any cash or other investments were recovered during the survey, but as there were mere entries without any narrat..
As per a Supreme Court decision, objection to notice must be disposed of first and only thereafter assessment can be proceeded. The objections dated 16.3.2010 were disposed of by Income-tax Officer on 22.10.2010 and notice u/s 143(2) is dated 15.9.20..
The assessee is a partnership firm. It developed a residential housing project by the name of “Surendra Estate” at Chuna Bhatti, Bhopal. The assessee got the approval for the project from Bhopal Municipal Corporation on 07.05.2003. The project was st..
In this case Assessing Officer noted that assessee had not attended proceedings in response to the notices dated 12.11.2009 and 23.12.2009, even after their proper service upon the assessee and has also not furnished any explanation. Assessing Office..
Assessee took up the matter in appeal and challenged the action of Assessing Officer and it was submitted before first appellate authority that the assessee is a proprietor of M/s Ceco Electronics and is engaged in the business of transformer manufac..
The facts indicate that original assessment was completed on 29.03.2004 and it was reopened by recording reasons on 26.03.2008. As per assessee, there was no failure to disclose all material facts and since reopening was done on the basis of retrospe..
The notice was given to assessee fixing the date of hearing on 01.08.2012 through notice board. But no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. Nor there is any application for adjournment. In view of above, it appears that assessee is not interested ..
During the assessment proceeding the AO found that the assessee had shown dividend income of Rs.5,60,809/- which was claimed as exempt. AO found that the assessee had not allocated any expenditure incurred by him towards earning of the tax-exempt-div..
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of Thermoplastic material and Phenolic Moulding Powers etc. For the year under consideration, return of income was filed on 31.10.2004 declaring total ..
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
