PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GALI JANARDHANA REDDY

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) and 271F were initiated. 10.It is observed in paragraph 5.4 of the order dated 31.03.2013 that in the previous years, the assessee has opted to club the income of minor children with her income, as the TDS 11 deducted from the Banks are in the name of assessee. Therefore, the income of minor

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) and 271F were initiated. 12 12. It is observed in paragraph 5.4 of the order dated 31.03.2013, that in the previous years, the assessee has opted to club the income of minor children with her income, as the TDS deducted from the Banks are in the name of assessee. Therefore, the income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.WINTAC LTD.,

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

U/s. 260A of I.T. Act, 1961 arising out of Order dated 02-01-2006 passed in ITA.No.81/Bang/2005 for the year 2001-02, praying that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein and allow the appeal and set aside the orders passed by the ITAT, Bangalore in ITA.No.81/Bang/2005 dated

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

forward and seeking to debit against Rs.74 lakhs odd an amount of Rs.103 lakhs odd was liable to be rejected. 30. Learned counsel for the respondent / assessee contended that therefore, the provisional / protective assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (Ananthpur), which was confirmed by the Appellate Commissioner is without jurisdiction and has no legs to stand on and cannot