Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order of learned CIT(A) dated 18.4.2019 and pertains to assessment year 2011-12.

The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Gandhinagar (‘CIT(A)’ in short), dated 06.11.2017 arising in the assessment order dated 28.12.2016 passed by the  Asses

Aforesaid appeal by revenue for Assessment year [AY in short] 2010-11 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-36, Mumbai [in short CIT(A) ] dated 26/08/2019 which has provided certain relief to the assessee on account of alleged

The above appeal filed by the assessee arises from order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ahmedabad dated 16.5.2018 for assessment year 2015-16.

The above appeal filed by the assessee arises from order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI, Baroda dated 10.9.2013 for assessment year 2010-11.

The above appeal filed by the assessee arises from order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Ahmedabad dated 03.08.2018 for assessment year 2012-13.

All the above appeals are directed against the different Orders of the Ld. CIT(A)-25, New Delhi, Dated 25.10.2017, for the A.Ys. 2006-2007 to 2011-2012 on quantum assessments and Orders Dated 26.10.2016 challenging the levy of penalty proceedings und

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 8.09.2010 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for assessment year 2006-07.2. Vide application dated 17.05.2021 the appellant sought

The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court ("HC") in Bangalore Turf Club Limited and ors. v. Union of India [WP No. 11168/2018 and WP No. 11167/2018 decided on June 02, 2021] held that Goods and Service Tax ("GST") cannot be levied on the entire bet amount rec

The controversy and the issues involved in the present petition are quite similar to those arising in a batch of petitions which have been heard along with the present petition. However, since the facts of the present case are slightly distinct, it