K.A.RAUF vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

132 at the residence or business premises of the assessee. Steps under Section 133A were undertaken at the residences of the employees or individuals concerned with the assessee and the businesses of the assessee/associates. The Revenue, basing upon and/or referring to the documents/material recovered in search and seizure, initiated proceedings under Section 153A of the Act for assessment

K.A.RAUF vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

132 at the residence or business premises of the assessee. Steps under Section 133A were undertaken at the residences of the employees or individuals concerned with the assessee and the businesses of the assessee/associates. The Revenue, basing upon and/or referring to the documents/material recovered in search and seizure, initiated proceedings under Section 153A of the Act for assessment

K.A.RAUF, vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX,

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

132 at the residence or business premises of the assessee. Steps under Section 133A were undertaken at the residences of the employees or individuals concerned with the assessee and the businesses of the assessee/associates. The Revenue, basing upon and/or referring to the documents/material recovered in search and seizure, initiated proceedings under Section 153A of the Act for assessment

K.A.RAUF vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

132 at the residence or business premises of the assessee. Steps under Section 133A were undertaken at the residences of the employees or individuals concerned with the assessee and the businesses of the assessee/associates. The Revenue, basing upon and/or referring to the documents/material recovered in search and seizure, initiated proceedings under Section 153A of the Act for assessment

K.A.RAUG vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

132 at the residence or business premises of the assessee. Steps under Section 133A were undertaken at the residences of the employees or individuals concerned with the assessee and the businesses of the assessee/associates. The Revenue, basing upon and/or referring to the documents/material recovered in search and seizure, initiated proceedings under Section 153A of the Act for assessment

BHIMA JEWELLERS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

disallowance is contrary to law in-so far as assessment year 2013-14 is concerned? ITA No.15 of 2021 -4- 4. The circumstances relevant for disposing of the appeal are in a limited sphere and are stated thus: On 30th of September 2013, the assessee filed the returns of the assessment year 2013-2014 declaring Rs.14,12,120/- as taxable

K.R.RAIZA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: This Court Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). The Details Of Orders Of Assessment Etc. Are Stated In The Following Table:

132 of the Act. On 03.05.2010, based on the documents, details, accounts seized from the premises of K A Rauf, and also that the assessee herein is residing in the same ‘Shelter’ of her father K A Rauf, notice under Section 153A read with Section 153C of the Act was issued to the assessee. On 17.02.2011, a notice under Section

K.R. RAZIYA, vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

Bench: This Court Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). The Details Of Orders Of Assessment Etc. Are Stated In The Following Table:

132 of the Act. On 03.05.2010, based on the documents, details, accounts seized from the premises of K A Rauf, and also that the assessee herein is residing in the same ‘Shelter’ of her father K A Rauf, notice under Section 153A read with Section 153C of the Act was issued to the assessee. On 17.02.2011, a notice under Section

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS,

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

132 of the Income Tax Act [hereinafter referred to as the “I.T. Act”] was conducted at the residence of the Sri.Jose Thomas, Smt.Gracy Babu and Sri.P.J.Paulose on 04.03.2009 and certain documents were seized. An unsigned draft agreement dated 23.02.2009 was found which indicated that the amount envisaged for settlement of liability was Rs.43.50 crores and that the value

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

132 of the Income Tax Act [hereinafter referred to as the “I.T. Act”] was conducted at the residence of the Sri.Jose Thomas, Smt.Gracy Babu and Sri.P.J.Paulose on 04.03.2009 and certain documents were seized. An unsigned draft agreement dated 23.02.2009 was found which indicated that the amount envisaged for settlement of liability was Rs.43.50 crores and that the value

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

132 of the Income Tax Act [hereinafter referred to as the “I.T. Act”] was conducted at the residence of the Sri.Jose Thomas, Smt.Gracy Babu and Sri.P.J.Paulose on 04.03.2009 and certain documents were seized. An unsigned draft agreement dated 23.02.2009 was found which indicated that the amount envisaged for settlement of liability was Rs.43.50 crores and that the value

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SMT.GRACY BABU,

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

132 of the Income Tax Act [hereinafter referred to as the “I.T. Act”] was conducted at the residence of the Sri.Jose Thomas, Smt.Gracy Babu and Sri.P.J.Paulose on 04.03.2009 and certain documents were seized. An unsigned draft agreement dated 23.02.2009 was found which indicated that the amount envisaged for settlement of liability was Rs.43.50 crores and that the value

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. GRACY BABU,

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

132 of the Income Tax Act [hereinafter referred to as the “I.T. Act”] was conducted at the residence of the Sri.Jose Thomas, Smt.Gracy Babu and Sri.P.J.Paulose on 04.03.2009 and certain documents were seized. An unsigned draft agreement dated 23.02.2009 was found which indicated that the amount envisaged for settlement of liability was Rs.43.50 crores and that the value

M/S. KUNNEL ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS (P) LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed and remanded with the observations as

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

section 5 of the Electricity Duty Act, 1963." Applying the same logic, in the instant case, the liability of Service Tax payable cannot be disallowed as the same has not been claimed by the appellant as an expense. Thus, relying on the decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court and the order passed by the Hon'ble ITAT, Cochin