COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S JINDAL STEEL THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

Appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

purchased twenty five MV turbines on and around 08.07.1998 for the purpose of its eligible business. Assessee claimed depreciation on the said turbines at the rate of 25% on WDV basis. On perusal of the materials on record, assessing officer held that in view of the change in the law with regard to allowance of depreciation on the assets

NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO

bogus transactions and that these transactions were done with a view to get the undisclosed income, for which tax had not been paid, back to India by this circuitous round tripping.   4 5 6. The   assessing   officer   relies   upon   the   order   of   the   DRP holding that there is reason to believe that funds received by NNPLC were actually the funds

M/S. KACHWALA GEMS vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

1. The assessee has not maintained and kept any quantitative details/stock register for the goods traded in by the assessee. 2. There is no evidence on record or document to verify the basis of the valuation of the closing stock shown by the assessee. The assessee is not able to prepare such details even with the help of books

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS(PREVENTIVE) vs. M/S. AAFLOAT TEXTILES (I) P.LTD.&ORS

The appeal is allowed

Bench: The Cestat Was To The Order Of Commissioner Of Customs Who Confirmed The Duty Demand Of

purchase of SILs for import of bullion and subsequently selling them in the local market. Shri Mahendra Shah stated that he had sold bogus SILs to the importer company. Shri Rasiklal Mehta stated that he and one AtuI Garodia met one Shri D.R. Gulati in Bombay who told that he could provide bogus SIL for which he would charge

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL) 1 vs. NRA IRON AND STEEL PVT. LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

1 (SC) 4 [1977] 107 ITR (SC) 17 The Delhi High Court in CIT v. Oasis Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd.5, held that : “The initial onus is upon the assessee to establish three things necessary to obviate the mischief of Section 68. Those are: (i) identity of the investors; (ii) their creditworthiness/investments; and (iii) genuineness of the transaction. Only when these three