Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee paid a sum of Rs.9,54,684/- to a foreign bank without deduction of tax at source. In the audit report, it was mentioned that it was a usance interest paid under the letter of credit and hence not..
After hearing both the parties, we find that during assessment proceedings the AO noticed that the assessee has declared sales figure of Rs.1,34,45,538/-.The assessee was asked to file details of the sales and labour charges which were accordingly fu..
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that the assessee branch is not the PE in respect of the business done out of the supplies made by foreign principal and accordingly, its business pro..
At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee contended that the AO passed order u/s.195(2) treating the assessee as in default by considering the price of the product as fees for technical services. He took us through the impugned order in wh..
The CIT thereafter issued notice dated 24.2.2009 under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act” for short) recording the following reasons: “From the computation of income filed with the return, it appears that this profit on sale of proper..
The grounds raised read as under: “(i) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing the order u/s. 154 even though there was no error apparent from..
Facts of the case is that the assessee filed return of income for the relevant Assessment Year 2005-06 on 28.10.2005 disclosing ‘Nil’ total income after claiming deduction u/s. 10B of the Act of Rs.6,30,71,257/-. Assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act was..
We have heard the learned DR and the learned counsel for the assessee. The learned counsel for the assessee filed written submissions with a copy orders pages 1-20. The interesting point is that the revenue filed misc. petition in connection with IT(..
Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in holding that duty entitlement pass book credit was cash assistance within the meaning of clause (iiib) to Section 28 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the entire amount including the premium receiv..
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 83,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on protective basis in respect of income from alleged undisclosed sources on the basis of the c..
We have heard both the parties and gone through the facts of the case as also the aforesaid decision relied upon by the ld. DR. A mere glance at the impugned order reveals that the order passed by the ld. CIT (A) is cryptic and grossly violative of o..
TDS deducted but not deposited within the time limit prescribed u/s. 201 of the Act. The same was deposited on 15.02.2006. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee could not contribute anything which supports his case. But after going through the records, we..
Section 41(1) of the Act, as it existed at the relevant time, was as under:- “41. Profits chargeable to tax.—(1) Where an allowance or deduction has been made in the assessment for any year in respect of loss, expenditure or trading liability inc..
Following effective grounds of appeal:- 1. That the ld.CIT(A) had erred in deleting disallowance of Rs.8,66,798/- as disallowed by the AO which was claimed by the assessee as business loss. 2. That the ld.CIT(A) had erred in deleting the additi..
section 10A, the eligible business (appellant’s branch office in this case) is to be considered as a separate entity and transfer of goods or services by eligible business to/from other business of the assessee are to be treated as if such transfer h..
Brief facts are that the assessee is a private limited company carrying on business of dealing in shares, operation in share futures and commodity futures. The assessee also advanced unsecured loans to other parties and derived interest income there ..
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of posting advertisement in various publication including newspapers. It has filed its return of income on 29.7.2005 declaring a total income of Rs..
In view of the observation, we are of the view that the claim of the assessee could not be rejected merely on the ground that in the books of account the securities were being valued as per the notifications issued by the R.B.I. However, it is not cl..
The contentions have carefully been considered. According to well established law, learned CIT (A) is required to dispose of the appeal on merits instead of dismissing the same in limine. We also found that the assessee, due to change of her correspo..
The only common issue in these two appeals of revenue is against the order of CIT(A) deleting the disallowance made by Assessing Officer on account of licence fee payable at Rs.9 lacs in each of the years and not treating the same u/s. 43B of the Act..
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
