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

68 - against the assessee and seized goods having been released in favour of the assessee, notice could be issued under Section 153C of the Act to file returns for six years. The stand of the Revenue therein was that the Assessing Officer could still proceed under Section 153A of the Act in order to find out the source of income

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

68 - against the assessee and seized goods having been released in favour of the assessee, notice could be issued under Section 153C of the Act to file returns for six years. The stand of the Revenue therein was that the Assessing Officer could still proceed under Section 153A of the Act in order to find out the source of income

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

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." “24. As discussed hereinbefore, in terms of proviso to Section 153C of the Act, a reference to the date of the search under the second proviso to Section 153A

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

undisclosed income” belongs to any other person other than the person with respect to whom a search was made under Section 132 of the Act or a requisition of books were made under Section 132A of the Act and thereafter, transmit the records for assessment of such other person. Therefore, the short question that falls for our consideration and decision

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)

undisclosed and unknown reasons for subjecting certain individuals or corporations to hostile or discriminating legislation. The above principles will have to be constantly borne in mind by the Court when it is called upon to adjudge the constitutionality of any particular law attacked as discriminatory and violative of the equal protection of the laws”. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioners

M/S FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

undisclosed income in the hands of the Assessee under Section 68 of the Act and the learned Tribunal on an appeal

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

undisclosed stock and concluded the assessment accordingly. Thereafter, the Assessing Authority simultaneously initiated penal proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Against the aforesaid additions, the assessee preferred appeal to the Commissioner of Income tax 19 (Appeals). The Appellate Authority held that the Assessing Authority had not brought any evidence of any expenditure outside books of accounts

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S BAHUBALI NEMINATH MUTTIN,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY,RAGHVENDRA S.CHAUHAN

income of Rs.1,32,73,013/- (iii) Undisclosed credits under Section 68 of the I.T. Act being the undisclosed income

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ATRIA WIND (KADAMBUR) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

68,251/- made on account of capital gains. During the previous year relevant to AY 2017-18, a partnership firm namely M/s. Perpetual Investments, was converted into a private company [the assessee]. The said conversion entailed the transfer of the entire assets and liabilities from the partnership firm to the assessee company. Whereas the assessee claimed that the conversion

JAYESH S MEHTA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 143(3) of the Act for the block period 01.04.1996 to 4 23.01.2003, computing undisclosed income at `2,67,58,592/-. 4. The appellant filed an appeal against the order dated 28.02.2005 before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The CIT (Appeals) by an order dated 09.04.2007 partly allowed the appeal and directed the Assessing Officer to adopt

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 153(A) of the Act, it was contended that the said search did not reveal the existence of any undisclosed income or assets representing any undisclosed income. The said search is illegal and without jurisdiction. Therefore, he wanted the entire proceedings be dropped. 7. Anyhow, he filed the very same return under protest

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 153(A) of the Act, it was contended that the said search did not reveal the existence of any undisclosed income or assets representing any undisclosed income. The said search is illegal and without jurisdiction. Therefore, he wanted the entire proceedings be dropped. 7. Anyhow, he filed the very same return under protest

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 153(A) of the Act, it was contended that the said search did not reveal the existence of any undisclosed income or assets representing any undisclosed income. The said search is illegal and without jurisdiction. Therefore, he wanted the entire proceedings be dropped. 7. Anyhow, he filed the very same return under protest

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA, M/S BELLARY STEEL ROLING MILLS,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 153(A) of the Act, it was contended that the said search did not reveal the existence of any undisclosed income or assets representing any undisclosed income. The said search is illegal and without jurisdiction. Therefore, he wanted the entire proceedings be dropped. 7. Anyhow, he filed the very same return under protest

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA, M/S BELLARY STEEL ROLING MILLS,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 153(A) of the Act, it was contended that the said search did not reveal the existence of any undisclosed income or assets representing any undisclosed income. The said search is illegal and without jurisdiction. Therefore, he wanted the entire proceedings be dropped. 7. Anyhow, he filed the very same return under protest

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.GAYATHRI ENTERPRISES

Bench: B.MANOHAR,D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

undisclosed income should be clear and direct. As we find that it is not so in the present facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the scope for interference with the order of the tribunal under Section 260A of the Act is very less and therefore we do not propose to examine the questions as had been formulated

RNS INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER

In the result, writ petitions are allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice L. Narayana Swamy Writ Petition Nos.46275-46289 Of 2016 (T-It)

undisclosed income declared before the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 allowed the application on 18th February 2014 under Section 245-D(1) of the 5 Act so as to proceed with it. After considering the report of the respondent No.2, respondent No.1 passed an order under Section 245D(2C) of the Act on 3rd April 2014 holding that the application

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/s. KHYATHI STEEL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,

In the result, we pass the following:

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

undisclosed income under Section 68 of IT Act, 1961?. We find no merit in this Special Leave Petition for the simple