Judgements by Ayush

In the present case also, no obligation on the part of the respondents to frame the Rules, notwithstanding the impracticality thereof, is established. It is purely a policy matter. The Supreme Court in Kanhaiya Lal Sethia Vs. UOI (1997) 6 SCC 573 hel

I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. Briefly the facts giving rise to the present petition are that on 15th October, 1992, on the basis of a secret information, one Virender Singh Batra was apprehended by the Respondent, R.K. Virmani wh

These two companies entered into a joint venture agreement on 14th July, 2003 for setting up a project in the State of Mizoram. After sometime, the company pulled out of it. They entered into a different relationship. The petitioning creditor agreed,

From a rending of sub-section (1) of section 263, it is clear that the power of suo motu revision can be exercised by the Commissioner only if, on examination of the records of any proceedings under this Act, he considers that any order passed therei

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

After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record, it is observed that similar disallowance was made by the AO in the immediately preceding assessment year i.e. 2005-06. The Tribunal, vide its order dated 31-01-2012

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 facts of the instant case, in brief, are that the petitioner incorporated a company in the year 1995 under the name and style of Maha Bhairav Plantation Pvt. Ltd. having its registered office at 308, Vinay Place, 11, Ashoka Marg, Lucknow-226001.

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