THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

disallowed as it was not meant for management of construction, but on other expenses, such as advertisement, sales promotion etc. Therefore, the income had to be assessed under the head income from other sources. The Tribunal held that the income had to be assessed as business income and the assessee could not have received a sum of Rs.78.25 lakh without

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

disallowed as it was not meant for management of construction, but on other expenses, such as advertisement, sales promotion etc. Therefore, the income had to be assessed under the head income from other sources. The Tribunal held that the income had to be assessed as business income and the assessee could not have received a sum of Rs.78.25 lakh without

G. SHUBHA DEVI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

DISALLOWING THE INTEREST ORDERED TO BE CHANGED UNDER SECTION 234A & B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE B AND 3) TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, VINEET KOTHARI, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Mr.S A Padmanabha, Adv for Appellant Mr.K V Aravind

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3 vs. M/S INDIANOIL SKYTANKING PVT LTD

Appeals stand dismissed

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

133 taxmann.com 458(Karnataka), wherein ‘cargo handling services’ were held to be part of an ‘airport’ and consequently entitled to deduction under Section 80-IA(4) of the Act, held that the fuel farm facility is an integral part of the airport and, therefore, eligible for deduction under Section 80IA of the Act. 4.5 Insofar as the disallowance

M/S PENTIUM CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar

disallowing the expenditure without appreciating replies received under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act will meet an assessee

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GULBARGA vs. M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

133(6) of the Act. The statutory returns, which were filed by the assessee, when compared with the stock position reflected in Form 3(c)(b) disclosed a difference of 3,01,240 metric tons. On 27.02.2006, a 14 notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued for re- opening of the assessment. On 05.05.2006 the assessment was completed

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

133-A of the Act at the premises of Bellary Steel on 1st June 2000. In the course of survey, various incriminating documents were seized/found. An inventory of rolls at the premises of Bellary Steel revealed that they had only 361 rolls in their stock as against 3702 rolls accounted both as purchased and leased by Financial institutions and leasing

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S BAHUBALI NEMINATH MUTTIN,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY,RAGHVENDRA S.CHAUHAN

133/- (ii) Difference in stock being undisclosed income of Rs.1,32,73,013/- (iii) Undisclosed credits under Section 68 of the I.T. Act being the undisclosed income of Rs.10,72,247/- (iv) Disallowance

SYNDICATE BANK vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

133/- under Section 36 (1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ 3 for short). The deduction claimed comprised of a sum of Rs.8,10,96,43,882/- being provision made towards rural advances and Rs.1,07,86,05,251/- being 7.5% of the total income. The assessee was selected for scrutiny

SRI B GAJENDRA KUMAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

133 (A) of the Act on 30.08.2006. The authorities found duplicate sets of exercise books, which were seized. Based on the findings of the survey authorities, the case of the assessee was reopened and notices under Section 148 of the Act was issued for the assessment years 2000 – 01 to 2005 – 06 and also notices under Sections

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HASSAN HAJEE & CO

Appeals are allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

133 (6) of the Act who have denied receipt of any amount from the stevedoring or C & F agents. Speed money payments said to have been paid through the sub-contractors to whom the cheques were issued also got verified by recording statements of those sub-contractors under section 131 of the Act. Having extensively considered the incriminating materials discovered

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HASSAN HAJEE & CO

Appeals are allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

133 (6) of the Act who have denied receipt of any amount from the stevedoring or C & F agents. Speed money payments said to have been paid through the sub-contractors to whom the cheques were issued also got verified by recording statements of those sub-contractors under section 131 of the Act. Having extensively considered the incriminating materials discovered

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HASSAN HAJEE & CO

Appeals are allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

133 (6) of the Act who have denied receipt of any amount from the stevedoring or C & F agents. Speed money payments said to have been paid through the sub-contractors to whom the cheques were issued also got verified by recording statements of those sub-contractors under section 131 of the Act. Having extensively considered the incriminating materials discovered

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S HASSAN HAJEE & CO.

Appeals are allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

133 (6) of the Act who have denied receipt of any amount from the stevedoring or C & F agents. Speed money payments said to have been paid through the sub-contractors to whom the cheques were issued also got verified by recording statements of those sub-contractors under section 131 of the Act. Having extensively considered the incriminating materials discovered

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S HASSAN HAJEE & CO.

Appeals are allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

133 (6) of the Act who have denied receipt of any amount from the stevedoring or C & F agents. Speed money payments said to have been paid through the sub-contractors to whom the cheques were issued also got verified by recording statements of those sub-contractors under section 131 of the Act. Having extensively considered the incriminating materials discovered

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S HASSAN HAJEE & CO.

Appeals are allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

133 (6) of the Act who have denied receipt of any amount from the stevedoring or C & F agents. Speed money payments said to have been paid through the sub-contractors to whom the cheques were issued also got verified by recording statements of those sub-contractors under section 131 of the Act. Having extensively considered the incriminating materials discovered

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S HASSAN HAJEE & CO.

Appeals are allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

133 (6) of the Act who have denied receipt of any amount from the stevedoring or C & F agents. Speed money payments said to have been paid through the sub-contractors to whom the cheques were issued also got verified by recording statements of those sub-contractors under section 131 of the Act. Having extensively considered the incriminating materials discovered

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HASSAN HAJEE & CO

Appeals are allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

133 (6) of the Act who have denied receipt of any amount from the stevedoring or C & F agents. Speed money payments said to have been paid through the sub-contractors to whom the cheques were issued also got verified by recording statements of those sub-contractors under section 131 of the Act. Having extensively considered the incriminating materials discovered