COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI D M PURNESH

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

unexplained investment in Harey estate of Rs.9,45,000/-(Point 15) Assessee’s submissions may be accepted.” 9. Thus, from perusal of the report submitted by the Assessing Officer himself, it is evident that, if the Remand Report is accepted with regard to long term capital gains

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

investment in the share capital of the Company. By declaring the diamonds in the VDIS 1997, the assessee has been able to bring him huge amount of `1,28,48,42,890/- by making a declaration of diamonds valued at `36,87,47,758/- and paying the tax on a flat rate of 30% on the VDIS declaration. After taking

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

investment in the share capital of the Company. By declaring the diamonds in the VDIS 1997, the assessee has been able to bring him huge amount of `1,28,48,42,890/- by making a declaration of diamonds valued at `36,87,47,758/- and paying the tax on a flat rate of 30% on the VDIS declaration. After taking

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA, M/S BELLARY STEEL ROLING MILLS,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

investment in the share capital of the Company. By declaring the diamonds in the VDIS 1997, the assessee has been able to bring him huge amount of `1,28,48,42,890/- by making a declaration of diamonds valued at `36,87,47,758/- and paying the tax on a flat rate of 30% on the VDIS declaration. After taking

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

investment in the share capital of the Company. By declaring the diamonds in the VDIS 1997, the assessee has been able to bring him huge amount of `1,28,48,42,890/- by making a declaration of diamonds valued at `36,87,47,758/- and paying the tax on a flat rate of 30% on the VDIS declaration. After taking

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA, M/S BELLARY STEEL ROLING MILLS,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

investment in the share capital of the Company. By declaring the diamonds in the VDIS 1997, the assessee has been able to bring him huge amount of `1,28,48,42,890/- by making a declaration of diamonds valued at `36,87,47,758/- and paying the tax on a flat rate of 30% on the VDIS declaration. After taking

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI. R. CHARUCHANDRA

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

investment in money lending which had been added as income of the assessee by the Assessing Officer and it has been noticed by the Tribunal that Assessee had withdrawn a sum of ` 16 lakhs on 07.09.2007, `10 lakhs on 08.10.2007 from State Bank of Mysore and for the assessment year 2002-03 on every long term capital gain

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI.H.M.SHIVAMALLAIAH

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,N.KUMAR

capital gains and house property cannot be brought to tax in the hands of the assessee without taking into consideration the material evidence considered by the Assessing Officer as - 10 - well as the Appellate Commissioner and recorded a perverse finding? 5. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the unexplained investment

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI CHANDRAKANT P SANU

The appeal is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

invested is unexplained income and brought to assessment. In respect of the compensation paid to the tenants, the AO allowed the deduction of Rs.11,20,000/- and disallowed the payment of compensation of Rs.15 lakhs. 4. In respect of the transaction entered into with Sri Janardhan, the assessee had stated that he had paid the compensation of Rs.3 lakhs

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