Income Tax Judgements

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee firm is engaged in the business of export. The scrutiny assessments u/s 143(3) were completed for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 on 31.1.2005 and 14.9.2005 determining the total income

Firstly it is noticed that this ground arises very much from the order passed by the learned CIT(A). Secondly a letter dated 08.11.2007 addressed to the Registry, I.T.A.T, by Shri Pankaj Kumar, ACIT, Circle 1(1), Mumbai is there on record containing

The short issue in the present appeal by the assessee is with reference to addition of Rs.9,45,000/-, a gift received from the sister of the assessee brought to tax under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer was of the view that th

In the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Ld.CIT(APPEAL) erred in bifurcating the interest free advance of Rs. 2.43 crores granted to M/s. Tarajyot Polymers Pvt. Ltd. partly as business advance for the part of the year and partly as non-b

The assessee is engaged in the business of trading in chemicals. The sales shown in the Profit & Loss Accounts were Rs. 3,15,85,478/- and against that purchases were shown as Rs. ,93,31,117/- on which gross profit of Rs. 7.95% was declared. The asse

The appeal by the Revenue was filed on 17.12.2008 and the appeal by the assessee was filed on 27.11.2008. The assessee is a public sector undertaking and, therefore, as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ONGC Vs CCE [1995] Suppl

These rather elaborate grounds of appeal attempt to highlight the factual matrix in which the assessee’s grievance is set out and the arguments in support of the assessee’s grievance. However, short grievance of the assessee, as is clearly discernibl

We find that under the scheme of Section 271 AAA, there is a complete paradigm shift so far as penalty in respect of unaccounted income unearthed as a result of search operation carried out on or after 1st June 2007 is concerned. Unlike in the case o

It was observed that certain advances were received by the assessee from the intending buyers in terms of agreement dated 30.01.1999 for providing electrical connection and fire fighting equipments. These advances were not considered to be receipts i

It was observed that the balance in the shares account is Rs.23,52,580/- whereas as per books of account and as per trial balance it is Rs.22,93,130/- and assessee has failed to explain the difference or substantiate his plea that there is no differe