EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,K.V.RANGAREDDY vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.

164 4,15,74,845 2021-22 3,00,82,983 2,09,86,875 2022-23 114,26,53,017 85,36,56,501 2023-24 1,61,80,065 1,12,87,744 Total 171,80,16,158 125,50,48,707 3. In view of the above, there is information which suggests that income chargeable

NATAKARI GOPAL ,MEDAK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SANGAREDDY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2007-08 Natakari Gopal, Medak Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward – 1, Sangareddy Pan – Ajupn 1204C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Date Of Hearing: 29/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 24/11/2021

164/ 3/ 87-ITA.1), dated 06-1-1994, wherein the list of notified municipalities and their respective distances to be considered for working out areas falling outside the local limits of municipality, are mentioned. In this regard, Sangareddy is the nearest municipality to the place where land is sold i.e Malkapur village is situated. All areas up to a distance

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD vs. DRS LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED , SECUNDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

164 (Gujarat High Court). 2. Sassoon J. David & Co., (P) Ltd Vs. CIT – 118 ITR 261 (Hon’ble Supreme Court) 3. CIT Vs. Walchand and Co., (P) Ltd., - 65 ITR 381 (Hon’ble Supreme Court). 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The assessee company submitted a return of income on 25/08/2009, declaring

SATYAM GUPTA ARAVEETI,PRAKASHAM DISTRICT vs. ITO, WARD-1, ONGOLE

164 taxmann.com 348 (Mumbai - Trib.) held that "Where cash deposits made by assessee was not properly explained, since sole source of income of assessed was retail business, such deposits should be treated as unaccounted business income subject to presumptive taxation undersection 44AD, rather than unexplained income under section 69A read with section115BBE"  In the case, Manickam Malu Prasanna vs Assessment