THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

131 was conducted and statements of Mr. Meraj Manal, Mr. Shabir Sharif, partner of the assessee - company and Mrs.Jayashree Ullal, CFO of the assessee - company were recorded. It was explained by them that the seized cash relates to part of proceeds of sale of 7 industrial sheds, out of which 6 sheds were owned by the Himalaya Drug Company Private

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

131 was conducted and statements of Mr. Meraj Manal, Mr. Shabir Sharif, partner of the assessee - company and Mrs.Jayashree Ullal, CFO of the assessee - company were recorded. It was explained by them that the seized cash relates to part of proceeds of sale of 7 industrial sheds, out of which 6 sheds were owned by the Himalaya Drug Company Private

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

131 was conducted and statements of Mr. Meraj Manal, Mr. Shabir Sharif, partner of the assessee - company and Mrs.Jayashree Ullal, CFO of the assessee - company were recorded. It was explained by them that the seized cash relates to part of proceeds of sale of 7 industrial sheds, out of which 6 sheds were owned by the Himalaya Drug Company Private

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

131 was conducted and statements of Mr. Meraj Manal, Mr. Shabir Sharif, partner of the assessee - company and Mrs.Jayashree Ullal, CFO of the assessee - company were recorded. It was explained by them that the seized cash relates to part of proceeds of sale of 7 industrial sheds, out of which 6 sheds were owned by the Himalaya Drug Company Private

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

131 was conducted and statements of Mr. Meraj Manal, Mr. Shabir Sharif, partner of the assessee - company and Mrs.Jayashree Ullal, CFO of the assessee - company were recorded. It was explained by them that the seized cash relates to part of proceeds of sale of 7 industrial sheds, out of which 6 sheds were owned by the Himalaya Drug Company Private

M/S. HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

131 was conducted and statements of Mr. Meraj Manal, Mr. Shabir Sharif, partner of the assessee - company and Mrs.Jayashree Ullal, CFO of the assessee - company were recorded. It was explained by them that the seized cash relates to part of proceeds of sale of 7 industrial sheds, out of which 6 sheds were owned by the Himalaya Drug Company Private

PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. SHRI. V. RAMAIAH

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

reassessment order is that the reasons recorded by the assessing authority for reopening were never communicated to the assessee though the same were produced before the learned Tribunal for perusal. The findings of the Tribunal are quoted below for ready reference: “Thus it is clear that vide letter dt.21.12.2011, the assessee has once again reiterated a request for furnishing

SHRI V SELVARAJ vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

The appeal is allowed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

131, dated 31.3.2008, wherein the appellant confirms the statement given under Section 132(4) on 14.3.2008 and accepted the valuation of Rs.11,10,01,980/- as per the valuation report. 14. The appellant has objected to the assessing officer adopting the valuation given in the report of the Registered Valuer for the purposes of assessing the income of the appellant

M/S MYSORE POLYMERS & RUBBER PRODUCTS LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

In the result, writ appeal No

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.S.INDRAKALA

reassessment orders dated 29.7.2004 and particularly the assessment order dated 5.8.2004 in respect of years 2002-03 and 2003-04 respectively are not sustainable and liable to be quashed as the petitioner was not liable to pay initial tax under Section 6-B of the Act and allowed the writ petition. It is against this order of the learned Single

M/S YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 10A applies, if such amount is credited to profit and loss account. It is submitted that clause (iii) of explanation- 1 provides for reduction the net profit by the amount of loss brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation whichever is less as per books of accounts. It is also urged that the assessee is eligible to claim the deduction