Income Tax Judgements

The assessee is converting scrap iron into MS steel. In the previous year relevant to the impugned assessment year, the assessee proceeded further to improve the value addition by converting MS steel again into TMT steel. In that process, the assesse

At the time of hearing, it was brought to our notice that this appeal emanates from a revisional order passed u/s 263 of the Act and because the revisionary proceeding itself has been struck down by the Tribunal vide its order dated 17.12.009, this a

Brief facts of this issue are that while doing the scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer has disallowed the disallowance by observing as under:- “On examination of the books of accounts it is observed that no tax on such payment/credit has be

The assessment in this case was completed under section 143(3). Later, on verification of the records of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax found that that the assessing authority has not examined the genuineness of certain trade creditors whic

We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The brief facts are that the assessee is a charitable Institution registered under section 12AA of the Act by DIT(Exemption), Kolkata vide order dated 30.06

In the grounds of appeal, the assessee has taken one legal plea that while rejecting the assessee’s application for renewal of exemption u/s 80G filed on 24.12.2011, the learned DIT(E) has ignored the amendment made in Section 80G(5)(vi) by the Finan

Facts of the case in brief are that the A.O. noted that the assessee has received Sales Tax incentive of Rs. 12,94,109/- in respect of Unit I and Sales Tax incentive of Rs. 84687/- in respect of Unit II on which deduction u/s 80IB has been claimed. A

The grounds of appeal raised by assessee read as under :- “1. For that the order of assessment as well as order of appeal is bad in law and should quashed. 2. For that the written submission filed in appeal was not considered. 3. For that the re

That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. C.I.T.(A) has erred in law in accepting fresh evidences filed by the assessee without calling for remand report from the AO, which is in contravention of the provision of Rule 46.” Same common

ITA No. 3871/Mum/2008 filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 8.2.2008 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (A)- XXII, Mumbai relating to Assessment Year 2004-05. ITA No. 87/Mum/2010 filed by the assessee is directed against the order