COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

gains. (iii) While going through your balance sheet, I find that so called sale of diamonds were not realised by - 14 - you during the relevant previous year. You are requested to furnish copies of your bank accounts in which the sale proceeds of the diamonds were actually received by you. I will also request you to furnish Permanent Account Number

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

gains. (iii) While going through your balance sheet, I find that so called sale of diamonds were not realised by - 14 - you during the relevant previous year. You are requested to furnish copies of your bank accounts in which the sale proceeds of the diamonds were actually received by you. I will also request you to furnish Permanent Account Number

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

gains. (iii) While going through your balance sheet, I find that so called sale of diamonds were not realised by - 14 - you during the relevant previous year. You are requested to furnish copies of your bank accounts in which the sale proceeds of the diamonds were actually received by you. I will also request you to furnish Permanent Account Number

M/S FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

credits as the undisclosed income in the hands of the Assessee under Section 68 of the Act and the learned Tribunal on an appeal though held that the additions in the hands of the Assessee under Section 68 of the Act could not be sustained but, the Tribunal proceeded to add the aforesaid amounts as unexplained income of the Assessee

SHRI NARAYAN RAO HEBRI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

capital gains and treated the sum of Rs.1,14,20,100/-, so declared, along with the unexplained cash of Rs.24,00,000/-, as income from other sources and subjected the same to tax under Section 115BBE of the I.T. Act. The assessment was completed by order dated 17.07.2019. 4.3 Aggrieved thereby, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner

SRI S S JYOTHI PRAKASH vs. THE ADDL COMMISSIONER

The appeal is allowed accordingly

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

cash credit and with regard to 5 addition made under Section 69 of the Act, he gave partial relief of Rs.6,09,119/-. 5. The matter was further carried by the appellant before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 10.08.2010 upheld the addition under Section 68 of the Act and with regard to the addition under Section