Income Tax Judgements

These appeals have raised the question about the procedure that is being followed by Calcutta High Court in consideration of the applications under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ‘1996 Act’). When the special

After analysing the facts of this case, considering the submissions made by the learned Advocates for the parties and the materials placed before us, we cannot brush aside the fact that the assessee ompany is a well known and reputed Chartered Accoun

The assessee company is engaged in the business of operation and management of hotels owned by third parties. The assessee has taken over the management of the hotel property, viz. Tulip Star Mumbai, situated at Juhu Tara Road, Juhu, Mumbai. The asse

Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee filed a return declaring loss of Rs.3,95,706/- and his assessment was finalized u/s 143(3) of the Act at an income of Rs.3,84,698. During the assessment, the AO obs

Whether amounts transferred by the assessee to Mandi Parishad would constitute application of income for charitable purposes within the meaning of Section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?”

The relevant facts of the case giving rise to these appeals are as follows. The assessee is a private limited company which filed its return of income for A.Y. 1981-82, 82-83 and 83-84 on 30.6.1981, 30.6.1982 and 10.8.1983 respectively. On the basis

The relevant facts of the case giving rise to these appeals are as follows. The assessee is a private limited company which filed its return of income for A.Y. 1981-82, 82-83 and 83-84 on 30.6.1981, 30.6.1982 and 10.8.1983 respectively. On the basis

That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the disallowance of ` 30,07,454/- made by the Assessing Officer in respect of expenditure on repairs and maintenance of building incurred by the appellant, holding th

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company and it has filed return of income on 31.10.2005. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that assess

We find that CIT(A) has passed a non-speaking order by following the decision of ITAT in the case of Multiplan India (Pvt.) Ltd. (supra). We are of the view that where appeal has been disposed of even though on merits without a speaking order, the or