PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 3 vs. ABHISAR BUILDWELL P. LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

viii) It is submitted that the erstwhile scheme of block assessment under Section 158BA envisaged assessment of “undisclosed income” for two reasons. First reason was that there were two parallel assessments envisaged under the erstwhile regime i.e. (i) block assessment under Section 158BA to assess CA No. 6580/2021 Etc. Page 28 of 59 the undisclosed income and (ii) the regular

MANSAROVAR COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

disallowed). Separate penalty proceedings were initiated under sections 271(1)(a). 271(1)(c), 273/274 and 271-B of the Act. 2.12 The assessees then preferred appeals before the CIT(A). Subsequently on 08th December, 2000, the writ petitions filed by the assessees came to be dismissed by the High Court as the respective assessees moved the Appellate Authority prescribed

RAMNATH AND CO. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

56. To sum up, we wish to conclude that the Tribunal has erred on two counts in holding that the assessees are entitled to the benefit of deduction under Section. 80-O of the Act : First, mere transmission of the information to a foreign enterprise, evidently, abroad does not go to show that it is a service rendered from India

RENUKA DATLA vs. COMNR. OF INCOME TAX KARNATAKA

viii) and (ix) and remitting the matter back to the Assessing Officer for re-determination and modification of the amount under item (i). The appellant’s challenge to the levy of interest was disallowed. The appellant filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in which the appellant not only impugned the decision