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

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

section 3 of the Act, and the only relevant points for decision are, what profits were made on those sales and by whom. On the finding that the appellant sold the goods direct to the ultimate purchasers and recovered the price therefor, it is only the appellant that could -be taxed for the profits made thereon and not the Managing

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

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 3

NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the  expiry of four years from the end of the  relevant assessment  year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part

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

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

3 of 7 purchased from the assessee his share holding in the Associated Hotels of India Limited for an amount of Rs.20,657,05/13/0. Similarly in" or about 1949, the holding in Hotels (1938) Limited was purchased by the said M. S. Oberoi. It was maintained by the assessee that he has ,filed returns of his income in respect

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CULCUTTA vs. KARAM CHAND THAPAR & BROS. (P) LTD

In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs

Section 256--Reference to High Court-Question of fact or law--Assessee claiming loss on sale of shares-Whether capital loss, or business loss or genuine or bogus--Only question of fact--Tribunal’s decision final--Tribunal need not specifically state its taking into account the cumulative effect of the circumstances-Court not to interfere unless Tribunal’s decision

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

3 [1963] 50 ITR 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