Income Tax Judgements

The assessee is a public charitable trust. It is registered u/s 12A(a) of the Income Tax Act. Its income is eligible for exemption u/s 11 of the Act subject to the conditions specified therein. In the income and expenditure account submitted by the a

At the time of hearing of the appeal, neither the assessee nor any of his authorized representative were present, although, the last notice for hearing the appeal on 11.08.2011 was sent at the address given by the assessee in form no.36. The same has

Brief facts of the case are that in the relevant assessment year, the assessee-firm derived income from business of civil construction. The assessee had filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs.68,970/-. The Assessing Officer noticed f

If the party, at whose instance the reference is made, fails to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of the paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, the court is not bound to answer the referenc

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company in the relevant assessment year carried on the business of trading in shares and securities and investment in shares and securities. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had shown long-

This appeal filed on 12.5.2011 by the Revenue against an order dated 27.1.2011 of the ld. CIT (Appeals)-I, New Delhi, raises grounds relating to addition of i)` 4,66,935/- on account of unexplained bank credit.;ii) ` 4,55,000/- on account of unexplai

(i) That the sustaining of disallowance of interest Rs. 1,61,226/- by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the ground that assessee has made interest free advance of borrowed funds in arbitrary, unjust, unwarranted and at any rate very excessi

“(i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 13,80,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unsecured loans by accepting unsecured loan

Above issue arises as Assessing Officer considered the sale of shares by the assessee to the firm in which he is a Partner as a non genuine transaction. Consequently he re-worked out the P&L account as stated in page 8 of the assessment order and det

Ld. CIT (Appeal) is not justified in law and facts and circumstances of the case in holding the order passed under section 143(3) as valid without proving the valid service of notice under section 143(2) with in the limitation period of 12 months as