PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GALI JANARDHANA REDDY

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

132 of the IT Act carried out in the case of Sri Madhu, Smt.Renuka, Sri Raghavacharyulu and others on 25.10.2010. 12. These are all the provision that has been appraised by the learned standing counsel Sri K.V.Arvind for the Revenue/appellant. It is stated that the proceedings initiated under Section 153C are therefore in order and in accordance with

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S IND SING DEVELOPERS PVT LTD,

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: JAYANT BANERJI,S.G.PANDIT

132 of the Act on 26.08.2008 and an Assessment Order under Section 153(A) read with Section 143(3) of the Act came to be passed on 31.12.2010. The Assessing Authority considering the income arising on sale of land and relinquishment of rights as business income as against the assessee's treatment as part of income as receipt from capital

SRI A NARAYANASWAMY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

capital gains were computed based on the said agreement? 2. Heard Smt. H. Vani, learned Advocate for the Assessee and Shri. K.V. Aravind, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue. 3. Brief facts of the case are, a search under Section 132

DR SYED ANWAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

Section 132(4A) of the Act is a rebuttable presumption. He adverted to the - 7 - ITA.421/2014 seized materials, which are produced at page Nos.114 to 136 of the appeal memorandum and submitted that except the agreement dated February 27, 1996, whereunder, the five individuals had obtained easementary rights, none of the documents bear assessee's signature. He submitted that Assessing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S C RAMAIAH REDDY

In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

gains by invoking Section 45(2) of the Act. 3. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the ground that reopening of assessment is invalid since, no notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide order dated 26.11.2010 inter alia held that assessee

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S JAY MINERALS

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

132 search of the business premises of the assessee, the foundational facts having surfaced, a Section 153A notice was issued; in response, the assessee filed the return of Income Tax for the relevant Assessment Years. (b) The Assessing Officer having completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r/w Section 153A disallowed purchases/expenditures in terms of Section 37(1); 7 despite notice

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI.M. ABDUL ZAHID

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

132 search of the business premises of the assessee, the foundational facts having surfaced, a Section 153A notice was issued; in response, the assessee filed the return of Income Tax for the relevant Assessment Years. (b) The Assessing Officer having completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r/w Section 153A disallowed purchases/expenditures in terms of Section 37(1); 7 despite notice