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 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

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 vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

6,43,715/- per month if the bridge - 23 - area is not authorized for commercial use. The LESSORS shall not be entitled to any escalation during the three years of the first term, for any reason whatsoever. The said amounts to be paid alongwith lease rents. ii. For the second term of the lease, if the charges exceed

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

6,43,715/- per month if the bridge - 23 - area is not authorized for commercial use. The LESSORS shall not be entitled to any escalation during the three years of the first term, for any reason whatsoever. The said amounts to be paid alongwith lease rents. ii. For the second term of the lease, if the charges exceed

THE COMMISIONER 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

6,43,715/- per month if the bridge - 23 - area is not authorized for commercial use. The LESSORS shall not be entitled to any escalation during the three years of the first term, for any reason whatsoever. The said amounts to be paid alongwith lease rents. ii. For the second term of the lease, if the charges exceed

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

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 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 under Section 40A (3) of the I.T. Act being undisclosed income Rs.24,216/- (v) Gross profit on suppressed sales being undisclosed income at Rs.19

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 of interest

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