Judgements by CS Bijoy
View Full Profile
Having regard to Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules, 1963 and following various decisions of the Tribunal including in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del.) and the judgment of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case
Provissio of sec 194C do not apply to the payment to CDLB
CS Bijoy 20 February 2012 at 15:34
The issue in appeal lies in a very narrow compass of material facts. The assessee is engaged in the business of rendering stevedoring and CFS (container freight station) services. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer not
We have heard the learned counsel for the assessee and the ld. Departmental Representative and considered their submissions carefully. Ld. C.I.T.(A) came to the conclusion that Rule 8D of I.T. Rules will not apply for this assessment year and Rule 8D
As per Rule 19(2) non reply of notice of hearing may cause the aplleal to be treated as unadmitted
CS Bijoy 18 February 2012 at 14:29
Despite sending defect memo and notice of hearing sufficiently in advance, assessee did not respond either to defect memo or notice of hearing. So, it is inferred that the assessee is not interested in prosecution of this appeal
The brief facts necessitating the present revision petition are that acting on intelligence that large quantity of ball bearing were being smuggled from Nepal into Delhi, the DRI kept surveillance in and around Delhi. On 04.08.1992, the DRI intercept
The assessee company is engaged in the business of real estate. During this year it purchased some land in district Alwar (Rajasthan) through Shri Jagdish Beniwal, who used to coordinate in purchases between the assessee company and the sellers of th
These appeals under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short “the Act”) are directed against a common final order, dated 2nd February 2005 in Appeal No. E/5261-62/04-NB(A), passed by the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribuna
That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in upholding the disallowance of interest and deemed expenses under section 14A of the Income-tax Act read with Rule 8D. That on the fact
At the time of hearing of the appeal on 30.01.2012, the Counsel for Shri P.K. Sharma, managing director of the assessee company was specifically asked to show the competence of managing director to file the present appeal when assessee company is alr
The assessee claimed to be engaged in the business of agricultural activities in the name of Samak Farms & Nursery and held agricultural fields at various places in the districts of Ghaziabad and Gurgaon. In the return of income, assessee claimed agr
CAclubindia
