Income Tax Judgements

Briefly stated the facts of the case for the A.Y. 1998-99 are that the assessee bank filed its return claiming depreciation of `25,70,03,293. The Assessing Officer observed that there was substantial variation between the amount of depreciation as pe

However, at the time of hearing no one was present on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment application received. Appeal was passed over in the first round. Even in the second round also the position remained the same. The record shows that the

The tribunal in the impugned order has examined the factual matrix relating to acquisition/purchase of the equity shares mentioned at serial nos.1 to 3 and the investment in mutual funds. It has reached a categorical and a firm conclusion that the bo

The only issue that arises for adjudication is whether the assessee is a “Trader” or an “Investor”. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee is engaged in the business activity as far as share purchase and sale are concerned. The first appellate

The facts which revealed from the records are as under. The assessee company is engaged in the business of providing business process management, transitioning services, BPO services to its clients. The assessee is carrying out the said activity from

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.78,84,241/- being the excess amount of unexpired service contracts holding that since the service contract is spread over 2 accounting

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction uls.801B(10) of Rs. 1,90,03,948!- by placing reliance upon various decisions ignoring the facts that the le

Facts, in brief, as per relevant orders are that on the basis of information received from the office of Addl.DIT (Investigation), Ghaziabad that the assessee deposited cash in his bank account No.785 in Punjab National Bank, BB Nagar, Ghaziabad duri

At the time of hearing, it was pointed out that the amount mentioned in the grounds is not correct and the correct amount is Rs. 25,70,208/- instead of Rs. 72,96,230/-. The ld DR has accepted this factual mistake in the ground. Accordingly, we proce

It would be appropriate to give a brief background of the case before we proceed to deal with the miscellaneous application. The revenue in the ground No.6 had raised dispute regarding deletion of addition by CIT(A) in relation to expenditure incurre