In this appeal the Revenue has raised three grounds, wherein ground nos. 2 and 3 are general in nature and do not survive for adjudication. The remaining lone issue raised by the Revenue reads as under: 1) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on fa..
This appeal was fixed for hearing on 16.01.2012. However, despite notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor has it moved any application for adjournment. It is, therefore, presumed that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appe..
The petitioner is a private limited company. In respect of the assessment year 2004-05 it filed a return of income on 27.10.2004 and the same was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act on 31.12.2004. Thereafter, on 28.3.2011 the respondent issued ..
Respectfully submits that pursuant to the order of Ld. CIT, the assessment order has been passed by the Ld. AO and Ld. AO did not make any addition in the assessment order. Copy of assessment order is enclosed herewith. Hence the present appeal remai..
The AO was not satisfied about the source of the money introduced as capital. He, therefore, added the same to income. During the remand proceedings, the appellant produced all the five partners before the AO for examination. One partner had expired ..
A search was carried out u/s.132(2) of the I.T.Act, 1961 on 20/08/2004 in Vimal Group of cases and thereupon these assessments were made u/s.153A(b) of the I.T.Act. During the course of search, a data file of “ACME Company” was found and seized from ..
The assessee had been paying Central Excise duty on the PMB processed at their factory in Mumbai but had not paid the same for the conversion done at the work site. Consequently, a show cause notice was issued to them by the Commissioner of Central E..
The facts leading up to the levy of penalty may be noticed in brief. The assessee is a domestic company. In respect of the year under appeal, it filed a return of income on 27th November, 2000 declaring income of Rs.1,43,40,680/-. The return was firs..
The facts very briefly are that the appellant produces inter alia Reduced Crude Oil (for short “RCO”). By Notification No. 75/84-CE dated 01.03.1984, the Central government in exercise of its powers under Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Ru..
On the facts & in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 12,46,272/- made by the Learned Assessing Officer on interest free advances made to sister concerns..
Briefly stated the facts are as under. The assessee is a cooperative bank engaged in the banking business. For the first quarter of financial year 2007-08, the assessee has filed its TDS returns without quoting the PAN numbers of deductees in 1933 ca..
Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of Trading in Electric Motors, Fans, Laboratory equipments and generation of Wind Power filed return declaring total income at Rs.11,60,151/-. During the course..
Facts: The appellant – assessee, a body corporate, are in the business flexible packaging, is engaged in the manufacture of various types of packaging machines, classified under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (for short “the Tariff Act”). - The ass..
That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld.CIT(A)-VI, Kolkata has erred in law as well as on facts by deleting the addition of excess depreciation claimed of Rs.1,61,95,130/- by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT in the case of th..
This is an appeal filed by the revenue. It is directed against the order passed by the CIT (A) dated 3rd February, 2011 for Assessment Year 2006-07. The grounds of appeal read as under:- On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT (A)..
We have heard both sides. The CBDT, vide above instruction has clearly laid down that the revenue should not prefer appeals against assessees before ITAT if the tax effect involved in the appeal, excluding interest, is less than Rs. 3 lacs. The tax p..
The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as “CIT (A)”] erred in passing the order dated 22.03.2010 upholding the order of the Ld. AO without affording the Appellant proper opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the order ..
The ld. Commissioner of Income — tax (Appeals), ! XXXIII, Mumbai [“ld. CIT (A)”], erred in not adjudicating the ground raised by the Appellant challenging the action of the Assessing Officer [“A.O.”] in reassessing the income of the Appellant by invo..
Facts in brief as emerged from the corresponding assessment order passed u/s.143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 31/01/2006 and the penalty order passed u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961 dated 31/03/2008 were that the addition in respect of write off..
After hearing the rival submissions and on careful perusal of materials available on record keeping in view of the fact that since the assessment year involved in this appeal is relating to A.Yr. 2004-05 as per the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High..
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
