THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI H NAGARAJA

Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV,B.S PATIL

disallowed Rs.2 Crores, and therefore, the assessment order passed merged with the appellate order; hence, in view of the judgment of the High Court in the case of DCIT Vs VARMA INDUSTRIAL LTD. – (2001) 250 ITR 472 (KAR), the Revisional Commissioner could not have exercised jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act to revise the said items

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

unexplained credits in the assessee’s books of accounts. The assessee’s claim of long term capital loss is disallowed because the whole transaction of sale of diamonds is treated as fictitious and manipulated transactions. However, he allowed set off the income declared under VDIS. This factual finding could have been considered by the Appellate Authority on the basis

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

unexplained credits in the assessee’s books of accounts. The assessee’s claim of long term capital loss is disallowed because the whole transaction of sale of diamonds is treated as fictitious and manipulated transactions. However, he allowed set off the income declared under VDIS. This factual finding could have been considered by the Appellate Authority on the basis

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

unexplained credits in the assessee’s books of accounts. The assessee’s claim of long term capital loss is disallowed because the whole transaction of sale of diamonds is treated as fictitious and manipulated transactions. However, he allowed set off the income declared under VDIS. This factual finding could have been considered by the Appellate Authority on the basis

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

unexplained credits in the assessee’s books of accounts. The assessee’s claim of long term capital loss is disallowed because the whole transaction of sale of diamonds is treated as fictitious and manipulated transactions. However, he allowed set off the income declared under VDIS. This factual finding could have been considered by the Appellate Authority on the basis

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

unexplained credits in the assessee’s books of accounts. The assessee’s claim of long term capital loss is disallowed because the whole transaction of sale of diamonds is treated as fictitious and manipulated transactions. However, he allowed set off the income declared under VDIS. This factual finding could have been considered by the Appellate Authority on the basis

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

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

Unexplained investment in Jewellary as discussed in para 7 above. - ` 10,13,626 (iv) Investment made in Agricultural land and Advances as discussed in para 8 above, being UDI - ` 13,45,200 (v) Deforestation charges Disallowed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S VIJAYANAND ROADLINES LTD

The appeal is allowed

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Bangalore, Which Appeal Came To Be Dismissed On 28/12/2007 Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer.

unexplained investment in respect of previous year expenses, differences in cost of building and interest is perverse and arbitrary being contrary to law and material on record? 6. We have heard Mr. Raviraj, for the revenue and Mr. Parthasarathi for the assessee. 7. The short question that arises for our consideration is: Whether the assessee has explained the investment made

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI D M PURNESH

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowing the assessment made by the Assessing Authority to tax amount of Rs.1,12,745/- under the head “Income of other sources”. Even when the Assessing Authority rightly observed that the assessee had not furnished any proof with regard to foreign tour undertaken by the assessee during the year except that the amount was spent by M/s Classic Coffee

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI CHANDRAKANT P SANU

The appeal is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

invested is unexplained income and brought to assessment. In respect of the compensation paid to the tenants, the AO allowed the deduction of Rs.11,20,000/- and disallowed

M/S FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

unexplained income of the Assessee under Section 69- A of the Act, a different provision. In the appeal filed before the High Court, the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court held in para-15 that the use of Date of Judgment :23-07-2018 I.T.A.No.512/2017 M/s. Fidelity Business Services India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

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

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

The appeal stands dismissed

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68, when the conditions of the said section are not satisfied. 5.2. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in upholding the impugned addition when the Appellant established that he had sufficient source for deposit of cash to the bank account. 5.3. The Lower Authorities are not justified in rejecting the explanation of the Appellant