Judgements by CS Bijoy

The respondent filed the suit for recovery of `5,89,434/- towards agent commission against the appellants claiming himself to be an agency of defendant No.3 (in the suit) an Italian Company, in India. Appellants floated a global tender for purchase o

Facts in brief as emerged from the corresponding assessment order passed u/s.143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 31/01/2006 and the penalty order passed u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961 dated 31/03/2008 were that the addition in respect of write off

After hearing the rival submissions and on careful perusal of materials available on record keeping in view of the fact that since the assessment year involved in this appeal is relating to A.Yr. 2004-05 as per the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High

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

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

The Commissioner issued notice under Section 263 of the Act on two grounds: firstly, the respondent had earned dividend income of Rs.28,20,145/- which was exempt from tax but no disallowance of expenditure under Section 14A of the Act was made. Secon

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 28.10.2009 pertaining to assessment year 2005-06. The grounds raised read as under:- “(i) In the facts and the circumstances of the