MEENAKSHI MILLS, MADURAI vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,MADRAS

In the result, the appeals fail, and are dismissed with

11 of 28 inference from the primary facts found? Clearly not. But it is argued against this conclusion that it conflicts with the view expressed in several English decisions, some of them of the highest authority, that it is a question of law what inference is to be drawn from facts. The fallacy underlying this contention is that it fails

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

SHEO NATH SINGH vs. APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, CALCUTTA

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the

purchased by the said M. S. Oberoi. It was maintained by the assessee that he has ,filed returns of his income in respect of the relevant assessment years and that during the assessment for the year 1945-46, the assessee had disclosed to the Income-tax Officer, District II,(2) Calcututa that he had received the aforesaid amount

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

purchased. The Company had not enclosed their Bank Statement showing the source of fund for share application money. (50,00,000/- Ch. No. 069123 dt. 17.11.2008 & Rs. 40,00,000/- Ch. No. 069124 dt. 17.11.2008 drawn on Deutsche bank. The Company had shown income of Rs. 10,730/- for A.Y. 2009-10 Rs. 90,00,000 invested on 17.11.2008 Return

M/S.VIRTUAL SOFT SYSTEMS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-I

purchase and lease of cinematographic films held to be bogus Rs. 57,51,520.00 (ii) Reduction of claim of depreciation in respect of leasing vehicles from 40% to 20%. Rs. 10,28,462.00 (iii) Unexplained share application money added back as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 Rs. 19,16,000.00 (iv) Lease rentals of cinematographic films held