M/S.M K AGROTECH PRIVATE LTD vs. THE ADDL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

disallowed and was added back to the total income. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that there is no case for holding that the purchases are bogus

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BPL SANYO FINANCE LTD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is

Bench: The Tribunal Was Arising From The Order Dated 4Th June 2004 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Bangalore (For Short “The

bogus claim of depreciation should not be disallowed and taxable income for the year 1997-98 be computed afresh. 9 8. The assessee was asked to submit/file detail statement in response with the supporting materials. The assessee accordingly filed response dated 25th September 2001 stating in detail about the transaction. They also placed all the documents on record in support

COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX vs. OHIO UNIVERSITY CHRIST COLLEGE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

bogus. It is also not brought to our notice that the Income-tax Officer doubted the said entries and called upon the assessee to produce the accounts of the college and that the assessee failed to produce the same.” 10. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Trustees of H.E.H. the Nizam’s Charitable Trust (supra), the Division Bench of Andhra

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MAA COMMUNICATION BOZELL LTD

The appeal is allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

Purchase Agreement from Kotak Mahindra Finance Limited (for short ‘KMFL) and the same was leased to the BSAL. On verification of the records, it was found that these lease transactions are bogus transactions and there is no transaction of 103 M.S.Rolls from Mumbai to Bellary. On the basis of the said survey report, a show cause notice was issued

SRI M SHANTHA KUMAR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice H.G.Ramesh Writ Petition Nos.2176 & 11524/2012 (T-It) Between: Sri M Shantha Kumar Aged About 63 Years S/O Muniyappa Proprietor M/S Satya Hospital No.1, 1933/1, 1934 Kammanahalli Main Road Bangalore 560 084 ...Petitioner (By Sri. Maheshkiran Shetty, Advocate) And: 1 The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii Queens Road, Bangalore 2 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 5(1) Mission Road, Bangalore. ...Respondents (By Sri. Jeevan J Neeralgi, Advocate For R1& R2) These Writ Petitions Are Filed Under Articles 226 & 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Quash The Order Passed By The 1St Respondent Dated 05.04.2010 Vide Annexure G & Etc. These Writ Petitions Coming On For Preliminary Hearing, This Day, The Court Made The Following:

purchased by the assessee in the name of Smt. Tayamma and Smt. Sandhya Shanthakumar through registered sale deeds for a sum of Rs.64,58,352/-. This property is sold to M/s Rakesh Builders and Developers through a deed dt.18.4.2005 for a sum of rs.2,36,30,200/-. The property sold is 'Vacant industrial land.....'. In respect of the sale

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

purchasers of the diamonds. Therefore, he treated the sale as unexplained credits in the assessee’s books and the sale proceeds of the diamonds are brought to tax as unexplained credits in the assessees books of accounts. The assessee’s claim for long term capital loss was disallowed, because the whole transactions of sale of diamonds is treated as fictitious

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

purchasers of the diamonds. Therefore, he treated the sale as unexplained credits in the assessee’s books and the sale proceeds of the diamonds are brought to tax as unexplained credits in the assessees books of accounts. The assessee’s claim for long term capital loss was disallowed, because the whole transactions of sale of diamonds is treated as fictitious

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

purchasers of the diamonds. Therefore, he treated the sale as unexplained credits in the assessee’s books and the sale proceeds of the diamonds are brought to tax as unexplained credits in the assessees books of accounts. The assessee’s claim for long term capital loss was disallowed, because the whole transactions of sale of diamonds is treated as fictitious

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

purchasers of the diamonds. Therefore, he treated the sale as unexplained credits in the assessee’s books and the sale proceeds of the diamonds are brought to tax as unexplained credits in the assessees books of accounts. The assessee’s claim for long term capital loss was disallowed, because the whole transactions of sale of diamonds is treated as fictitious

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

purchasers of the diamonds. Therefore, he treated the sale as unexplained credits in the assessee’s books and the sale proceeds of the diamonds are brought to tax as unexplained credits in the assessees books of accounts. The assessee’s claim for long term capital loss was disallowed, because the whole transactions of sale of diamonds is treated as fictitious

M/S ANS CONSTRUCTIONS LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

bogus. Indeed, it was not in dispute the input tax credit was claimed in the returns filed by the registered dealer. 19. Pursuant to the said decision of Kirloskar Electricity Company, circular No.15/2017-18 dated 08.02.2018 has been issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes whereby it is instructed as under: “1. Claim of Input Tax Credit [ITC] shall