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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

Section 133A of the Act was conducted in the premises of M/s. Bellary Steel and Alloys Limited, at Bellary (‘BSAL’ for short). During the said search, it was found that the M.S.Rolls given on lease by the assessee-Company to the BSAL were not in existence. On verification of the records of BSAL, it was found that BSAL is claiming

M/S NAM ESTATES PVT. LTD. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

133A of the Act in the business premises of the assessee. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and an order of assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 29-12-2008 by which the Assessing Officer disallowed

SHRI NARAYAN RAO HEBRI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands dismissed

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

133A is reliable, the Lower Authorities are not justified in failing to read the said statement wholly and fully but reading the same to their convenience. 5.6. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in making various observations which are - 14 - ITA No. 166 of 2025 purely his ipse dixit, contradictory, contrary facts and based on only surmises and conjecture

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

133A of the Act and information was collected under Section 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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GULBARGA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.

Accordingly, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,VINEET KOTHARI

133A of the ‘Act’, found that there were instances where assessee had made payment of transmission charges to KPTCL and State Load Dispatching Centre (‘SLDC’ for short), an arm of KPTCL, without deducting tax at source thereon. The 4 authorities of the Revenue were of the view that payment for using the transmission lines for transmission of power generated

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MOOKAMBIKA DEVELOPERS

The appeals stand allowed to the extent as indicated above, and the matter is

Bench: VINEET SARAN,A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA

133A of the Act was conducted in the premises of the assessee and subsequently a notice for re- opening under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 15.9.2008. The Assessing Officer, by order dated 17.12.2009, made an 3 addition of Rs.53,00,000/- after disallowing

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S VSL MINING COMPANY PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed as being

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

133A of the IT Act was conducted on 25.3.2008 and search under Section 132 of the IT Act was conducted on 1.4.2008 in respect of one Sri Manoj Kumar Jain5, wherein the Revenue alleges to have recovered various documents with regard to the transactions of the said MKJ with the assessee, which were impounded. 4 Hereinafter referred

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SHRI MUNINAGA REDDY

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

133A of the I.T.Act.? ” 2. We have heard Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel appearing for the appellants – revenue and Mr.Dinesh, learned counsel appearing for the assessee. 3. The learned counsel appearing for both the sides do not dispute the fact that, in view of the subsequent decision of this Court in the case of M/s.Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory 3 reported

M/S GENEVA INDUSTRIES LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed in part;

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

disallowing the claim u/s. 54G of the IT Act, in respect of investment made on purchase of land and amount paid for purchase of plant and machinery out of the consideration amount on sale of industrial plot as criteria prescribed in the said provision was not satisfied contrary to the law declared by the Apex court in Fibre Boards

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

133A of the Income Tax Act and observed that a sum of Rs.182 Crores had been paid by BMRCL to the consortium. The Department was of the view that assessee ought to have deducted tax at source before making the payment. Accordingly, a show cause notice3 was issued calling upon the assessee to show cause as to why it should

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.,

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

133A of the Income Tax Act and observed that a sum of Rs.182 Crores had been paid by BMRCL to the consortium. The Department was of the view that assessee ought to have deducted tax at source before making the payment. Accordingly, a show cause notice3 was issued calling upon the assessee to show cause as to why it should

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. M/S MINITECHS

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

disallowance was made owing to mismatch between two submissions. The accountant had made a mistake by submitting a provisional ledger extract at one point of time which resulted into certain mismatches in the amounts. The mismatch in the submissions would not result into total expenditure to be bogus. The labour component is major expenditure of the Assessee