Judgements by CS Bijoy

At the time of hearing before us, it is stated by the learned counsel for the assessee that there are various factual errors in computing the disallowance as per Rule 8D. However, he is not arguing in detail with regard to those errors but, his argum

At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue involved in the present appeals is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of ITAT, Pune Bench dated 7th December, 2011 rendered in assessee’s own case in ITA Nos.983

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

The brief facts of the case are that assessee has filed its return of income on 30.3.2003 declaring an income of Rs.43,400. This return was processed under sec. 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 25.5.2003 at the returned income. According to the

Despite sending notice of hearing sufficiently in advance, assessee did not appear nor any application for adjournment has been received at the time of hearing of the appeal, in spite of the fact that earlier also on several dates the hearing was adj

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

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