Income Tax Judgements

I have heard Ld. DR Shri R. Gupta and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. I find that the assessee has purchased fixed deposit from ITC Classic Finance Ltd. On 27.06.1995 vide receipt no. 02/199506/53666C/53667C/53702C at Rs.12,600/- (i

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) dated 2nd June, 2011 for Asstt. Year 2005-06. The grounds of appeal read as under: “That order passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the ld. CIT(A)-II,

In completing the assessment, the assessing authority has made addition of ` 49,534/- as disallowance of interest attributable to loan creditors. The assessee’s books of accounts contained loan credits brought down from the earlier assessment year an

The first ground relates to addition of Rs.13,77,000/- made u/s 68 by the AO. During the assessment proceedings the assessee was asked by the AO to prove the identity of the lender, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the lender in

The tax effect in this case is found to be less than `.3 lac, the limit prescribed under Instruction No. 3/2011 dated 09.02.2011 and when ld. DR was apprised of this fact, he could not controvert the same and he was also unable to show that the case

The ground raised by the assessee is that the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in confirming that cash assistance is taxable in the hands of the assessee. It is the case of the assessee that the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) himsel

In brief, the factual background giving rise to the impugned dispute can be summarized as follows. By a letter dated 18.12.2006, it was pointed out by the assessee that a refund of Rs 6,78,32,796/- was received by it on 1.4.2006 in consequence of the

This case was listed for hearing before the Tribunal on 08-12-2011 and for this assessee was informed. Today i.e. on 08-12-2011 when the case was called on board, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any request for adjournment has been filed

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) ought not have deleted the addition of Rs. 4,49,95,728 representing expenses for acquisition of rights The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciate the fact that the provisions of sec. 32

. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the ld.AO in making addition of ` 15,00,000/- being share application money received during the year holding the sam