M/S. JINDAL ALUMINIUM LIMITED vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. M. Shyam Prasad

reassessment proceedings in the light of the settled propositions referred to above. 10. The survey in the petitioner’s premises under Section 133A

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S VSL MINING COMPANY PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed as being

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

133A of the IT Act was conducted on 25.3.2008 and search under Section 132 of the IT Act was conducted on 1.4.2008 in respect of one Sri Manoj Kumar Jain5, wherein the Revenue alleges to have recovered various documents with regard to the transactions of the said MKJ with the assessee, which were impounded. 4 Hereinafter referred

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MAA COMMUNICATION BOZELL LTD

The appeal is allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

133A of the Act was conducted in the premises of M/s. Bellary Steel and Alloys Limited, at Bellary (‘BSAL’ for short). During the said search, it was found that the M.S.Rolls given on lease by the assessee-Company to the BSAL were not in existence. On verification of the records of BSAL, it was found that BSAL is claiming bogus

JEANS KNIT PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Ram Mohan Reddy Writ Petition No.13174/2013 (T-It)

133A of the Act, statements were obtained from some employees of the petitioner-company, pursuant to which, the assessment of petitioner’s returns for the assessment year 2007-08 was completed under Section 143(3) of the 4 Act on 30.12.2010 declining deductions under Section 10B of the Act, on the premise of the statement of the petitioner’s employee

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GULBARGA vs. M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

133A of the Act and information was collected under Section 133(6) of the Act. The statutory returns, which were filed by the assessee, when compared with the stock position reflected in Form 3(c)(b) disclosed a difference of 3,01,240 metric tons. On 27.02.2006, a 14 notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued

JEANS KNIT PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Ram Mohan Reddy

REASSESSMENT PROCEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT] VIDE ANNEXURE-D; AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R Though this petition is listed for orders on office objections, with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner, petition is finally heard and disposed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MOOKAMBIKA DEVELOPERS

The appeals stand allowed to the extent as indicated above, and the matter is

Bench: VINEET SARAN,A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA

133A of the Act was conducted in the premises of the assessee and subsequently a notice for re- opening under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 15.9.2008. The Assessing Officer, by order dated 17.12.2009, made an 3 addition of Rs.53,00,000/- after disallowing the genuineness of the compensation of Rs.1,65,00,000/- alleged to have been

SHRI V SELVARAJ vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

The appeal is allowed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

133A in respect of the business place of the appellant. It has been further stated that there was a search in the residential premises of the appellant purported to be under the warrant of authorization in the name of one Sri.B.M.Farook of Fiza Group and the appellant as the person to search. The said Farook was neither a partner

M/S INVENGER TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Raghvendra S. Chauhan

Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the petitioner had failed to reflect the corresponding sales turnover of such business income in the VAT-100 filed with the department. 4. In response to the proposition notice, the petitioner appeared before the respondent, and explained his side of the case. However, by order dated 23.12.2016, the respondent No.2, namely

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SHRI MUNINAGA REDDY

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

133A of the I.T.Act.? ” 2. We have heard Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel appearing for the appellants – revenue and Mr.Dinesh, learned counsel appearing for the assessee. 3. The learned counsel appearing for both the sides do not dispute the fact that, in view of the subsequent decision of this Court in the case of M/s.Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory 3 reported

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. M/S MINITECHS

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

reassessment proceedings was also rightly treated as a circumstance showing the bonafides of the assessee by the CIT(A). It was open to the Assessee to have taken a stand that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court case of Dr.T.K.Dayalu (supra), capital gain in the case of transfer of capital assets under Joint Development