Facts of the
Case
The assessee, IFCI Limited, earned total dividend income of
approximately Rs. 1091.07 lakhs during Assessment Year 1998-99.
Out of the said dividend income, an amount of Rs. 10.45 lakhs
...
Facts of the
Case
The Revenue preferred appeals before the Delhi High Court against
the orders passed in favour of the assessee.
The controversy involved the tax treatment and depreciation-related
issues...
Facts of the
CaseThe Revenue preferred appeals before the Delhi High
Court in ITA Nos. 668/2010 and 669/2010 challenging the relief granted to the
assessee concerning the tax treatment of software duplication/manufact...
Facts of the CaseThe Commissioner of Income Tax (the Appellant)
filed appeals (ITA No. 802/2010 and ITA No. 804/2010) before the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi against the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's (ITAT) order
c...
Facts of the Case·
The Appellant, Power Finance Corporation Ltd. (a Public Sector
Undertaking), filed a series of Income Tax Appeals (ITA Nos. 1093/2010,
1095/2010, 109...
Facts of the Case
The petitioner/assessee had filed an appeal before the Commissioner
of Income Tax (Appeals)-XII, New Delhi against the assessment proceedings.
Along with the appeal, the assessee sought stay o...
Facts of the
Case
Power Finance Corporation Ltd., a Government-controlled entity,
filed multiple income tax appeals before the Delhi High Court.
Applications seeking condonation of delay in filing and refiling...
Facts of the
CaseThe Revenue filed appeals before the Delhi High
Court against the order passed in favour of Panem Coal Mines Ltd. for
the relevant assessment year. During the hearing, counsel appearing for the
Reven...
Facts of the Case
The
Assessee (Sahara India) entered into an agreement to purchase a building
from M/s Aarohi Builder (P) Ltd. on November 4, 1991.
A
balance of ₹2,47,38,673 stood in the buildin...
Facts of the
CaseThe Revenue challenged the order of the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal for Assessment Year 2005-06.The Assessing Officer alleged that the assessee
institution had violated Section 13(1)(c) by providing...