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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

142; or (c) Has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty, - (i) Omitted 38 (ii) In the cases referred to in clause (b), in addition to any tax payable by him, a sum which shall not be less than one thousand rupees

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S THE HAMLET,

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

Section 68 of the Act. The CIT(A) confirmed the finding recorded by the Assessing Officer. However, the Tribunal examined the Bank Statements and other evidence on record to determine the genuineness of the transaction as well as the identity and creditworthiness of the purchasers. After referring to the Bank Statements of the three purchaser companies, the Tribunal held

UNION OF INDIA vs. M/S VERTIVE ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,M G UMA

142 which deals with miscellaneous 65 transitional provision. The relevant portions of the said judgment reads as under: " 10. ..........a Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in the case of Siddharth Enterprises Vs The Nodal Officer, [2019-TIOL-2068-HC-AHM-GST = 2019 (29) G.S.T.L. 664 (Guj.)] has dealt with issue involved at length. It has been held that denial

UNION OF INDIA vs. M/S P S BHAT BROTHER

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,M G UMA

142 which deals with miscellaneous 65 transitional provision. The relevant portions of the said judgment reads as under: " 10. ..........a Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in the case of Siddharth Enterprises Vs The Nodal Officer, [2019-TIOL-2068-HC-AHM-GST = 2019 (29) G.S.T.L. 664 (Guj.)] has dealt with issue involved at length. It has been held that denial

UNION OF INDIA vs. M/S ORCHESTRATE SYSTEMS

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,M G UMA

142 which deals with miscellaneous 65 transitional provision. The relevant portions of the said judgment reads as under: " 10. ..........a Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in the case of Siddharth Enterprises Vs The Nodal Officer, [2019-TIOL-2068-HC-AHM-GST = 2019 (29) G.S.T.L. 664 (Guj.)] has dealt with issue involved at length. It has been held that denial

UNION OF INDIA vs. M/S HP PPS SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,M G UMA

142 which deals with miscellaneous 65 transitional provision. The relevant portions of the said judgment reads as under: " 10. ..........a Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in the case of Siddharth Enterprises Vs The Nodal Officer, [2019-TIOL-2068-HC-AHM-GST = 2019 (29) G.S.T.L. 664 (Guj.)] has dealt with issue involved at length. It has been held that denial

UNION OF INDIA vs. M/S ESCON GENSETS PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,M G UMA

142 which deals with miscellaneous 65 transitional provision. The relevant portions of the said judgment reads as under: " 10. ..........a Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in the case of Siddharth Enterprises Vs The Nodal Officer, [2019-TIOL-2068-HC-AHM-GST = 2019 (29) G.S.T.L. 664 (Guj.)] has dealt with issue involved at length. It has been held that denial

M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 154. Notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 21.12.2001 with a questionnaire. Further notices u/s 142 (1) were issued on various dates beginning from 7.10.2003 to 8.3.2004. The assessee- company filed written replies along with enclosures from time to time. The return furnished on 30.10.2001 was processed u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act on 24.03.2004 and order

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 154. Notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 21.12.2001 with a questionnaire. Further notices u/s 142 (1) were issued on various dates beginning from 7.10.2003 to 8.3.2004. The assessee- company filed written replies along with enclosures from time to time. The return furnished on 30.10.2001 was processed u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act on 24.03.2004 and order

THE PRL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SUNITA BAI

Bench: SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR,RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN

142(1) accompanied with a questionnaire was also issued to the assessee on 10.08.2009. In response to the said notice, the assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer. The assessee was asked to explain the receipt of Rs.45,00,000/- by way of gift from Hasim Mod Trading Establishment, Dubai. Despite the explanation given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer

M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year. - 53 - Provided further that nothing contained in the first proviso shall apply in a case where any income in relation to any asset [including financial interest in any entity] located outside India, chargeable to tax, has escaped assessment

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

142 has been issued to him, or (b) a return of income has been furnished by such other person but no notice under sub- section (2) of Section 143 has been served and limitation of serving the notice under sub-section (2) of Section 143 has expired, or (c) assessment or reassessment, if any, has been

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

142 has been issued to him, or (b) a return of income has been furnished by such other person but no notice under sub- section (2) of Section 143 has been served and limitation of serving the notice under sub-section (2) of Section 143 has expired, or (c) assessment or reassessment, if any, has been

SRI S S JYOTHI PRAKASH vs. THE ADDL COMMISSIONER

The appeal is allowed accordingly

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

68 of the Act and with regard to the addition under Section 69 of the Act, the Tribunal found that the property in question was valued by the Departmental valuer, approved valuer of the assessee and also District Registrar/Appellate Authority for the stamp duty purpose and hence the Tribunal decided the value of the property at the value which

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S C RAMAIAH REDDY

In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

68,180/- as long term capital gains and a sum of Rs.61,32,800/- as short term capital gains by invoking Section 45(2) of the Act. 3. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the ground that reopening of assessment is invalid since, no notice under Section

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

142 has been issued to him, or (b) a return of income has been furnished by such other person but no notice under sub- section (2) of Section 143 has been served and limitation of serving the notice under sub-section (2) of Section 143 has expired, or (c) assessment or reassessment, if any, has been

THE COMMISSIONER 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

142 has been issued to him, or (b) a return of income has been furnished by such other person but no notice under sub- section (2) of Section 143 has been served and limitation of serving the notice under sub-section (2) of Section 143 has expired, or (c) assessment or reassessment, if any, has been

THE COMMISSIONER 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

142 has been issued to him, or (b) a return of income has been furnished by such other person but no notice under sub- section (2) of Section 143 has been served and limitation of serving the notice under sub-section (2) of Section 143 has expired, or (c) assessment or reassessment, if any, has been