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

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

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

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

u/s 148 and had also duly filed the revised computation of income. The AO’s view is that “when the rental income was already offered to tax, it was in the knowledge of the 6 assessee that the capital gains are also attracted on taking possession of the built up area”. As already stated, the issue was debatable

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SHRI MUNINAGA REDDY

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

survey conducted under Section 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