Judgements by Ayush

I have carefully considered the various arguments raised by the appellant and also the material brought on record by the Assessing Officer. On the issue of notice u/s. 143(2), I have called for and examined the case records of the Assessing Officer.

Adverting first to ground no.1 in the appeal, facts, in brief, as per relevant orders are that return filed on 31.03.2002 by the assessee, a financial services company, was selected for scrutiny with the service of a notice u/s 143(2) of the Income-t

The assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of providing professional services and trading of shares. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed on 31.10.2001 declaring net income of Rs.13,833/-. The reasses

On the observation we find the following fact... The assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of writing instruments. During the relevant assessment year, the assessee has changed the method of valuation of stock. Due to t

We have heard both the parties and gone through the facts of the case. Indisputably, the ld. CIT(A) considered additional material in relation to two comparables and that of the assessee, which was not available before the TPO/AO. Apparently, the ld.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of``3,11,85,809/- on account of disallowance of loss on trading of shares as not an allowable expenditure u/s 37(1) in view of violation of clause 11 me

The facts in the case before Hon’ble High Court (supra) are identical to the facts in hand because the assessment order was passed by the AO as per the discussion with CIT and as per the office note dt. 28/12/2006 then the subsequent CIT cannot revis

On this issue assessee contended in the ground that the Assessing Officer has erred in reopening the assessment mainly to disallow under section 14A of the Income Tax Act and took shelter under section 36(1)(iii) to avoid provisions of Section 14A wh

As regards first issue, Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.2,20,000 on account of accrued interest by IVP’s. The Assessing Officer has held that investment in the asset was the income of the assessee and therefore, interest income accrued thereon

We have heard the learned D.R. in this regard and carefully perused the record. Having regard to the circumstances of the case we are of the view that the balance of convenience is in granting conditional stay. As declared in the open court, assessee