BASIR AHMED SISODIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal is allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR

260A  of   the  1961  Act.     The  appeal was 4 admitted on 27.4.2006 on the following substantial question of law: ­ ‘‘Whether claim to purchase of goods by the assessee could be dealt with under Section 68

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

260A of the Income Tax Act. Assessee also filed ITA No\005. of 2004 being aggrieved against a part of the order of the Tribunal. High Court allowed the ITA No. 340 of 2004 filed by the Revenue and held that the Tribunal was not right in deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income

M/S D. N. SINGH THROUGH PARTNER DUDHESHWAR NATH SINGH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH

260A of the Act. The High Court, inter alia, refers to the appellant filing Return for the 11 Assessment Year 1996-1997, disclosing total income of Rs.576133/-. 14. Reference is made to the addition of Rs.1,04,72,720.30 on the basis of short supply of bitumen. After referring to the submissions, the court focussed on the scope of Section

THE CITIZEN COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR G.RANGA RAO. HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed reportable

68 of the Act was reversed and that addition was deleted. Therefore, we are not concerned with that aspect of the mater which has attained finality. 7) Insofar as disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Act is concerned, the CIT(A) rejected the claim for deduction thereby upholding the order of the Assessing Officer. While doing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BALBIR SINGH MAINI

The appeals are dismissed with no order as to

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

68,276/-. 8. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal upholding the order passed by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which was also dismissed by the ITAT. 9. In the impugned judgment by the High Court under Section 260A

M/S. MANGALAM PUBLICATIONS, KOTTAYAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM

Bench: This Court & On Leave Being Granted, Civil Appeals Have Been Registered. 3.

260A of the Act, being IT Appeal Nos. 400, 557 and 558 of 2009 for the assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93 respectively. All the three appeals were allowed by the High Court vide the common order dated 12.10.2009. According to the High Court, the finding of the Tribunal that the assessee had disclosed fully and truly

ASSTT.COMMR.OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HOTEL BLUE MOON

260A of the Income Tax 1 Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as `the Act’, and the point that is raised for our determination is, whether issue of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act within the prescribed time for the purpose of block assessment under Chapter XIV-B of the Act is mandatory for assessing undisclosed income detected

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. CORE HEALTH CARE LTD

Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, stood dismissed. 3. On 31.12.92 assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 1992-93 declaring "nil" income. Later on the assessee filed a revised return on 6.8.93 declaring a loss of Rs.1,11,68

DILIP N. SHROFF vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI &ANR

The appeal is allowed

260A of the Act was dismissed in limine, stating : "We are not persuaded by the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee. The revenue authorities as well as the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal have concurrently held that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars. This finding is based on the aspect that the valuation report submitted by the assessee