SHRI NARAYAN RAO HEBRI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands dismissed

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68, when the conditions of the said section are not satisfied. 5.2. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in upholding the impugned addition when the Appellant established that he had sufficient source for deposit of cash to the bank account. 5.3. The Lower Authorities are not justified in rejecting the explanation of the Appellant

SHRI HARISH WADHWA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (iv) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the addition of Rs.28,71,972/- (credit card expenses) towards unexplained expenditure under Section 69C of the Act, without considering that the assessee had declared income under the provisions of Section 44AD of the Act? (v) Whether the Tribunal was right

SHRI SURESH KUMAR T JAIN vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

investment or credit are brought to tax under specified section of the Act. It is not clear as to under which 6 head the impugned amount would be brought to tax. c. The sundry creditors are only “trade creditors” and not “cash creditors”. “Trade creditors” represents persons who have supplied goods and to whom the assessee has not paid purchase

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

unexplained investments that can be clearly attributed to concealed income. However, mere 53 addition or estimates made on mere suspicion that there is something wrong with the book entries or their incompleteness, inadvertent omissions, debatable additions or disallowances, cash credits or investments not accepted as genuine, and rejection of a claim of expenses may not be themselves justify a penalty

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

unexplained income of the Assessee under Section 69- A of the Act, a different provision. In the appeal filed before the High Court, the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court held in para-15 that the use of Date of Judgment :23-07-2018 I.T.A.No.512/2017 M/s. Fidelity Business Services India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

M/S. DEEPAK EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

unexplained cash credit, under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (`Act’ for short). 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner claims that he had filed his Income Tax Returns on 26.10.2007, under Section 139 of the Act, for the Assessment Year 2007-08. He had declared his income as Rs.46,540/-, the same

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

68 of the Income Tax Act is discharged by the assessee?" 2. After hearing Shri E.I. Sanmathi, learned standing Counsel for Revenue and learned Senior Advocate Shri A. Shankar, for the assessee, in our opinion, only the following question arises for consideration in this appeal and with the consent of learned Advocates for the parties, we have framed the following

JINESH (HUF) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

68 is applicable when the appellant has not maintained books of accounts on the facts and circumstances of the case? (v) Whether the tribunal was justified in law in not condoning the delay of 145 days in filing the appeal on the facts and circumstances of the case? 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that

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, 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

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

THE MANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., vs. SRI A CHANDRASEKHAR

Bench: G.NARENDAR,P.N.DESAI

unexplained delay and laches; (e) ex facie barred by any laws of limitation; (f) grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any valid law; and host of other factors. The Court in appropriate cases in its discretion may direct the State or its instrumentalities as the case may be to file proper affidavits placing all the relevant