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

house property. Hence, expenses in that regard did not arise. 29. Per contra, assessee’s counsel supported the finding of the Tribunal by contending that the assessee had earned income of Rs.78.25 lakh as construction management fee. It had set up the interiors of M/s.Accenture Services Pvt. Ltd., and the aforesaid disputed amount was the expenses incurred in the process

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Housing Development Co. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, held as under “18. A perusal of Section 153A shows that it starts with a non obstante clause relating to normal assessment procedure which is covered by Sections 139, 147, 148, 149, 151 and 153 in respect of searches made after 31.5.2003. These Sections, the applicability of which has been excluded

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment." - 48 - 21. The Judgment of Meeta Gutgutia, supra was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court by the Revenue and Special Leave Petition has been dismissed condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment." - 48 - 21. The Judgment of Meeta Gutgutia, supra was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court by the Revenue and Special Leave Petition has been dismissed condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment." - 48 - 21. The Judgment of Meeta Gutgutia, supra was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court by the Revenue and Special Leave Petition has been dismissed condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment

THE PR. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment." - 48 - 21. The Judgment of Meeta Gutgutia, supra was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court by the Revenue and Special Leave Petition has been dismissed condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment." - 48 - 21. The Judgment of Meeta Gutgutia, supra was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court by the Revenue and Special Leave Petition has been dismissed condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment." - 48 - 21. The Judgment of Meeta Gutgutia, supra was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court by the Revenue and Special Leave Petition has been dismissed condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment

THE PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment." - 48 - 21. The Judgment of Meeta Gutgutia, supra was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court by the Revenue and Special Leave Petition has been dismissed condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment." - 48 - 21. The Judgment of Meeta Gutgutia, supra was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court by the Revenue and Special Leave Petition has been dismissed condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment

THE PR. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment." - 48 - 21. The Judgment of Meeta Gutgutia, supra was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court by the Revenue and Special Leave Petition has been dismissed condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment." - 48 - 21. The Judgment of Meeta Gutgutia, supra was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court by the Revenue and Special Leave Petition has been dismissed condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. HM EXPORTS

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

HOUSE NO.14, CUNNINGHAM ROAD BANGALORE-560 070. ...RESPONDENT (BY SMT.JINITA CHATTERJEE, ADV., FOR SRI S.PARTHASARTHY) ® 2 THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 30.04.2008 PASSED IN IT(SS)A.NO.26/BANG/2007, FOR THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD 1.4.1991 TO 29.05.2001, PRAYING TO I.FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN, II. ALLOW

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. DR L NARENDRA PRASAD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

undisclosed income of the assessee to Rs.13,95,240/- from Rs.42,17,430/- by its order dated 31-03-2008. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the First Appellate Authority the assessee as well as the Revenue preferred appeals before the Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal after re-examining the matter and taking into consideration the material seized during

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

undisclosed income has escaped re-assessment. The relevant extract of Section 147 of the Act reads as under: 147. If the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and also any other

DR SYED ANWAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

property and by the said agreement, a perpetual right to use an existing passage has been given by M/s.Pennar Hotels Private Limited to the purchasers of the land. The document does not in any way support the Revenue's claim. The other documents do not contain any name or signature of any person. 10. In respect of the lands purchased

SHRI HARISH WADHWA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

undisclosed receipts, without considering that the assessee had declared income under the provisions of Section 44AD of the Act? (vi) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the addition of Rs.1,99,80,919/- towards unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act, without considering that security transaction tax was duly paid and the income was exempt

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)

property of the citizen and with the other to bestow it upon the favoured individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes, is none the less a robbery because it is done under the form of law and is called taxation. This is not legislation. It is a decree under legislative forms …….We have established, we think, beyond