H N SUBBA RAMA GUPTA (HUF) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

house properties, made an addition of Rs.71,169/- as unexplained cash deposit found in the bank account maintained in the joint

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THE BELGAUM TALUKA RURAL INDUSTRIAL

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY,S.SUJATHA

cash investment in Mruthyunjaya Finance, Dharwad in the name of Defendant No.1. It is submitted that during the year 1987, defendant No.1 invested Rs.12,500/- as his capital in the said finance institution. As the said finance institution suffered loss, the investment so made has become dead investment. At any rate, the said investment is by defendant No.1

SHRI HARISH WADHWA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

cash deposits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (iv) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the addition of Rs.28,71,972/- (credit card expenses) towards unexplained expenditure under Section 69C of the Act, without considering that the assessee had declared income under the provisions of Section 44AD of the Act? (v) Whether the Tribunal

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

cash from the account of the transport concerns. Even common names appearing on the back side of the cheque 16 leaves showing the name of the person withdrawing the case namely, Mr. Pinaji Abdul Saleem, Mr. L. Raghuram Chaudhry, Mr. Suresh, Mr. Srinivasulu Reddy, Mr. Murali and Mr. R. Gangadhar, the above persons close associate of Shri G. Janardhana Reddy

M/S SUPER SALES CORPORATION vs. THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL

In the result, the Writ petition is dismissed

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,VIKRAMAJIT SEN (CJ)

cash credit account, at 22.75% for Bills passed due account and at 22.75% P.A. for inland bill discount account with quarterly rests from the date of application till the date of realization. 16. The Banks claim against Defendant Nos.6 and 7 are hereby dismissed. 17. The Banks claim against the 8th Defendant to the extent of Rs.2

THE COMMISIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S.CLEAR WATER TECHNOLOGIES

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs Justice K.S.Mudagal

house. Next he says that in 2009 his father had sold site situated in Rajarajeshwarinagar and out of sale Crl.A.No.391/2014 14 M proceedings, paid him his share in cash. At another stretch, he says that he kept that money in his bank account and paid that to the accused. 25. PW.1 in his further cross-examination says that

M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE UNION OF INDIA REPTD BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri W.P. No.26037/2005 C/W W.P.No.4464/2007 & W.P.No.27087/2005(It)

house Property D. Profits and Gains of business or Profession E. Capital Gains F. Income from other sources. (2) 'Perquisite' includes : (i) the value of rent-free accommodation provided to the assessee by his employer; (ii) the value of any concession in the matter of rent respecting any accommodation provided to the assessee by the employer; (iii) the value

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT MEENAKSHI DEVI AVARU

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

depositing the same Date of Judgment 30-08-2018 W.T.A.No.1/2015 & Connected Matters The Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. Smt. Meenakshi Devi Avaru through LRs. and Another 36/113 with the Commissioner and the said amount shall be paid to the legal representatives or heirs or such other persons entitled thereto in the manner specified in Chapter IV.” [II] That

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. SMT.KAMAKSHI DEVI

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

depositing the same Date of Judgment 30-08-2018 W.T.A.No.1/2015 & Connected Matters The Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. Smt. Meenakshi Devi Avaru through LRs. and Another 36/113 with the Commissioner and the said amount shall be paid to the legal representatives or heirs or such other persons entitled thereto in the manner specified in Chapter IV.” [II] That

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT MEENAKSHI DEVI AVARU

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

depositing the same Date of Judgment 30-08-2018 W.T.A.No.1/2015 & Connected Matters The Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. Smt. Meenakshi Devi Avaru through LRs. and Another 36/113 with the Commissioner and the said amount shall be paid to the legal representatives or heirs or such other persons entitled thereto in the manner specified in Chapter IV.” [II] That

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

deposit certificates in any form, whether with or without interest, and any distribution to its preference shareholders of shares by way of bonus, to the extent to which the company possesses accumulated profits, whether capitalised or not; (c) any distribution made to the shareholders of a company on its liquidation, to the extent to which the distribution is attributable

OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH

depositing the same Date of Judgment 30-08-2018 W.T.A.No.1/2015 & Connected Matters The Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. Smt. Meenakshi Devi Avaru through LRs. and Another 36/113 with the Commissioner and the said amount shall be paid to the legal representatives or heirs or such other persons entitled thereto in the manner specified in Chapter IV.” [II] That

THE COMMISSIONER vs. M/S VIJAYA BANK

Appeals are allowed in part

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

houses of Accused No.3 and Accused NO.5 and seized mobiles, cash and gold jewels. He turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. 26 28. PW.12 – Bharath, who is the panch witness for Ex.P15 – mahazar has stated that the Police Inspector has taken him from Railway station to Dhaba and told that murder has taken place and obtained his signature

M/S UNITED TELECOM LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Appeals are allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

houses of Accused No.3 and Accused NO.5 and seized mobiles, cash and gold jewels. He turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. 26 28. PW.12 – Bharath, who is the panch witness for Ex.P15 – mahazar has stated that the Police Inspector has taken him from Railway station to Dhaba and told that murder has taken place and obtained his signature

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI P C NAIDU

Appeal is allowed;

Bench: This Hon'Ble Court, In The Interest Of Justice & Equity."

property from the defendants for a valuable sale consideration of a sum of `6,50,000/- on the date of 01-09-1991 and there under R.F.A.No.631/2006 37 has paid a sum of `3,01,001/- towards partial sale consideration. According to the plaintiff, the balance sale consideration was agreed to be paid at the time of execution

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PVT LTD

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice V. Srishananda Civil Revision Petition No.29/2019 Between

depositing the day-to-day collections in the account. 8. It is also alleged that the appellant's wife's younger brother one Dhanapalraj was a member of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and was also a Vice- Chairman of All-India Bar Council, New Delhi. In Chennai, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) raided the houses

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT(A) vs. M/S DANISH STEEL CLUSTER PVT LTD

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr Justice P.N.Desai Criminal Appeal No. 18 Of 2017 Between: B Nagalakshmamma Aged About 32 Years, W/O Nataraju M.C., R/O Opp. To Ex-Counsellor, Channapatna, 12Th Main, 1St Cross, Ramanagara District, Channapatna, Also At: No.39/40, Hp Company, Hamlet Packard Global, Software Ltd., Electronic City, Bangalore 100.

cash and at that time her husband and daughter were present but none of them were examined. She further states that she had the amount in her house which she has received by selling the site. She has also taken an amount of Rs.3,40,000/- by way of gold loan. 11. She further admitted that now as there

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT PADMAVATHY

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

cash pursuant to the agreement, she has received six flats as consideration. The sale consideration of three flats was invested in the long 6 term capital gain. Hence, she is eligible for exemption under Section 54EA of the Act. The Revenue being aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT (Appeals) approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No.1473/Bang/2003