THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

deposited in cheques received from the assessee company is immediately withdrawn in cash. Cash has been withdrawn from the bank accounts mainly by the employees of the assessee company. Each leg of this transaction has been proved with evidence to be false, it has been proved by the admission of the alleged transporters’ that their business concerns have been floated

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5 vs. M/S NCR CORPORATION (INDIA) PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

disallowed and added back and depreciation towards furniture and fitting at the rate of 15% was allowed. The assessing officer further held that the assessee has changed the revenue recognition method and therefore it is not possible to ascertain true and correct profit of the assessee for the accounting year in question. It was further held that ATMs cannot

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S NCR CORPORATION PVT LTD

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

disallowed and added back and depreciation towards furniture and fitting at the rate of 15% was allowed. The assessing officer further held that the assessee has changed the revenue recognition method and therefore it is not possible to ascertain true and correct profit of the assessee for the accounting year in question. It was further held that ATMs cannot

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ASEA BROWN BOVERI LTD

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

cash to various parties. In all, a sum of Rs.1,87,442/- was paid and no evidence was adduced by the assessee for exceptional circumstances to attract Rule 6DD(j) of the Rules and was disallowed under Section 40(A)(3) of the Act. (iv) The assessing officer held that 90% of the interest received on bank deposits

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI D M PURNESH

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

cash deficit amount? viii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside disallowance made on account of amounts deposited

MAMATHA vs. SRI R RANGANATH

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. though are all a pecuniary advantage receivable by the heirs on account of one’s death but all these have no correlation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental death. How could such an amount come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

cash credits being the consideration for disallowing the assessee’s claim on its loss merely on - 31 - the ground that either the diamonds were not there or the assesee had ploughed back its unaccounted money under the garb of having sold diamonds declared under VDIS, 1997. Therefore, they were of the considered view that the Revenue had failed to establish

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

cash credits being the consideration for disallowing the assessee’s claim on its loss merely on - 31 - the ground that either the diamonds were not there or the assesee had ploughed back its unaccounted money under the garb of having sold diamonds declared under VDIS, 1997. Therefore, they were of the considered view that the Revenue had failed to establish

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

cash credits being the consideration for disallowing the assessee’s claim on its loss merely on - 31 - the ground that either the diamonds were not there or the assesee had ploughed back its unaccounted money under the garb of having sold diamonds declared under VDIS, 1997. Therefore, they were of the considered view that the Revenue had failed to establish

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

cash credits being the consideration for disallowing the assessee’s claim on its loss merely on - 31 - the ground that either the diamonds were not there or the assesee had ploughed back its unaccounted money under the garb of having sold diamonds declared under VDIS, 1997. Therefore, they were of the considered view that the Revenue had failed to establish

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

cash credits being the consideration for disallowing the assessee’s claim on its loss merely on - 31 - the ground that either the diamonds were not there or the assesee had ploughed back its unaccounted money under the garb of having sold diamonds declared under VDIS, 1997. Therefore, they were of the considered view that the Revenue had failed to establish

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MOODBIDRI CO OPERATIVE SERVICES BANK LTD.,

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT,G BASAVARAJA

disallowed a sum of Rs.14,03,072/- received as interest from savings bank account with SCDCC Bank Ltd. Therefore, there was a categorical finding by - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3463-DB ITA No. 185 of 2024 the AO that a sum of Rs.3,53,68,999/- received by the assessee as interest on FDs with the SCDCC Bank

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

deposited in their accounts had been immediately withdrawn in cash. And finally, the expenditure claimed against the name of the parties, wherein enquiries had been done came to be disallowed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI CLIFFORD D SOZA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

cash and the remaining amount was paid to the sub-contractors by cheques. It is not disputed that the TDS was deducted by the respondent while making payment to the sub-contractors and was deposited with the Department. Further, it is submitted that the assesseee could not prove that the entire amount, which was paid to the contractor, had been

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

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and particularly with reference to the undisclosed 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

M/S HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeals are disposed of as

Bench: JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA,S.SUJATHA

deposits under the insistence of the financial institutions and therefore the income received thereupon cannot be termed to income from other sources.” 23. In the light of these judgments, it can be held that the income from cash assistance, by whatever name called, received or receivable by any person chargeable under the head “profits and gains of business or profession

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ING VYSYA BANK LTD

In the result, this appeal is allowed in part,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

disallowance is not only fully justified but also a finding of fact we had referred to on principle of law and also the investment does not part- take the character of stock-in-trade. Even in trading and business practices long lasting investment if at all is in the nature of capital asset and not a stock-in-trade

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M.R.SAMPANGIRAMAIAH

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

deposition of PW.1. We hasten to add that the second Agreement at Ex.P4 is admitted in the pleadings of the parties and in their evidence as well. There is no dispute that all these Exhibits relate to suit property only. The signatures appearing on Ex.P2, Ex.P3 & Ex.P5 are specifically admitted by DW.1 who is none other than the husband