Income Tax Judgements

It was submitted that there is a major increase in sale as well as the profit of the company and that is only due to the efforts of the said director of the company. It was submitted that the provisions of Section 36 (1)(ii) will not be applicable. I

We can observe that the penalty under sec 271(1) (c) can be imposed only on the basis which can survive and not by manipulating the basis on the falls fact.

The facts mentioned in the assessment order are that the return declaring total income of Rs. 51,27,967/- was filed on 31.10.2002. In the course of assessment, it was inter-alia found that the assessee sold its property situated at B-19, Okhla Indust

The fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.17,34,716/- made by the A.O. on account of foreign exchange loss claimed by the assessee without any supporting evidences. and in the circum

We have carefully considered the arguments of both the sides and perused the material placed before us. It is a settled law that the burden is upon the assessee to establish that the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of

At the outset, it was pointed out by the learned AR that only one issue is raised in the present appeal which is regarding disallowance made u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of IT Rules, 1962. The Assessing Officer has made disallowance u/s 14A with referen

The facts, in brief, are that in the assessment order the AO had noted that assessee had shown dividend income of Rs. 98,59,980/-, which is exempt. However, the assessee had not disallowed any expenditure for earning exempt income. The AO, therefore,

The first issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of travelling expenses by treating the same as not being business expenses even though the Fringe Benefit Tax (FBT) liability was worked out u/s. 11

The facts of the case as per SOF filed by the assessee, are that the Appellant Association is a mutual organization registered under the Maharashtra Co-op. Housing Society Act, 1960, affiliated to the Mumbai District Co-op. Housing Federation Ltd., f

That the Assessing Officer (‘AO”) erred on facts and circumstances of the case and in law in assessing the income of the Appellant under the normal provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at Rs. 17,52,18,050 against returned income of Rs 3,8