Income Tax Judgements

This appeal was fixed for hearing on 5.9.2012 and the same was informed to the assessee at the address as mentioned by the assessee against Item No. 10 of Form 36. However, on the date of hearing when this appeal was called upon for hearing, no one a

Despite sending notice of hearing sufficiently in advance, neither assessee attended nor any adjournment request has been received. Thus, it is inferred that the assessee is not interested in prosecution of the present appeal

Assessee was informed that matter will be heard on 17.09.2012. But, no one appeared on behalf of assessee. Nor there is any application for adjournment. In view of above, it appears that assessee is not interested in prosecuting this appeal. Hence th

The grounds raised read as under:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) is bad both in the eye of law and on facts. 2(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Comm

The grounds raised read as under:- “1. Whether the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) was correct on facts and circumstances of the case and in law in deleting the disallowance of ` 8,76,435/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of advertise

The facts at the assessment stage show that the assessee declared total loss of Rs. 1,96,610/- for the year under consideration. The assessee has also claimed exemption u/s. 10A of the Act at Rs. 96,02,867/-. The returned income was assessed at a los

Facts, in brief, as relevant orders are that e-return declaring income of `1,50,37,034/- filed on 30th November, 2008 by the assessee, providing management services for large buildings, hospitals, factories etc., was selected for scrutiny with the se

The facts concerning the only issue in dispute are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of pneumatic conveying systems. The company is located at Ambarnath, beyond Kalyan wherein there is frequent power failures making it impossible t

Notice of hearing was duly served upon the assessee vide RPAD on record along with the memo of defect. As the Bench did not function, the case was adjourned to 25.6.2012 and thereafter to 4.9.2012 for which both the parties were informed through noti

On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) has erred in upholding the disallowance of `.2,073,610/-, being 25% of the dividend income, made by the AO under section 14A of the Act, without establishing any real nexus