Facts of the
CaseThe Revenue filed multiple appeals before the Delhi
High Court under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the
respondent, Sanjeev Dhingra. During the hearing, counsel for the Revenue
subm...
Facts of the
CaseThe Revenue filed multiple appeals before the Delhi
High Court against the respondent assessee. During the hearing, counsel for the
Revenue submitted that the tax effect involved in each appeal was be...
Facts of the
CaseThe Revenue (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,
Central-3) filed multiple appeals before the Delhi High Court against the
respondent, Sanjeev Dhingra. During the hearing, counsel for the Reve...
Facts of the
Case
The assessee, proprietor of M/s International Academy of Foreign
Languages (IAFL), rendered translation and interpretation services to
foreign clients via internet.
For Assessment Year...
Facts of the
Case
The assessee, proprietor of M/s International Academy of Foreign
Languages, provided translation and interpretation services to foreign
clients via the internet.
For Assessment Y...
Facts of the
CaseThe assessee, proprietor of M/s International
Academy of Foreign Languages, rendered translation and interpretation services
to foreign clients via the internet and claimed deduction under Secti...
Facts of the
CaseThe appeal was filed by the Revenue under Section
260A against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for Assessment Year
2003–04. The dispute revolved around multiple additions and di...
Facts of the
CaseThe Revenue (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax)
filed appeals before the Delhi High Court against the respective respondents.
During the hearing, counsel for the Revenue submitted that the tax effe...
Facts of the
CaseThe appellant, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.,
a non-resident company based in South Korea, filed an appeal under Section 260A
challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under ...
Facts of the
Case
The appeal was filed by the Revenue under Section 260A against the
ITAT order.
The dispute pertains to Assessment Year 2005–06.
The Assessing Officer disallowed ₹7.75 crore clai...