Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. M/s Sri Sri Gruha Nirman India Pvt. Ltd.

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

1) of the Act and selected for scrutiny assessments, so notices under Section 143(2) of the Act were issued. 3.2 In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the respondent/assessee had claimed deductions under Section Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI CHAUHAN Signing Date:10.01.2024 15:43:36 Signature Not Verified ITA 1021/2019 & 157/2023 Page

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. SOMA ENTERPRISES LTD

The appeal is disposed off accordingly

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

1) by the Income Tax Officer, Mandya. The case was selected for scrutiny in accordance with the scrutiny guidelines issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Notice under Section 143(2) was issued and served on the assessee on 23.08.2007. In response to the same, the Internal Auditor has appeared and represented the case and produced various documents

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s Polisetty Somasundaram,

1) During the assessment proceedings, the identity and creditworthiness of the parties subscribed share capital remained unproved and the genuineness of the transaction was also unproved, therefore, the capital of Rs.55,00,000/- was treated as income from undisclosed sources of the assessee’s company. (2) No information/details in respect of the share application money amounting to Rs.51

PENDURTHI CHANDRASEKHAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The appeal is allowed and all the four substantial

1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, while confirming the addition of Rs.3,40,000/- as unexplained credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, is right in law in holding that there should be sufficient reasons for receiving gifts though it is from father

M/S. SREE TRADING CORPORATION vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

1 1980 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 660 2 (2016) 15 SCC 785 HCJ & NTRJ I.T.T.A.No.205 of 2006 2 THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI I.T.T.A.No.205 of 2006 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan) Heard Ms. I.Maamu Vani, learned counsel for the appellant

The Commissioner of Income Tax - IV vs. National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.,

The appeal is dismissed

1) ITR OL1. Reference was also made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Mepco Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT, 319 ITR 208 recording that the issue being debatable, recourse to rectification under Section 154 of the Act to change the opinion, could not be undertaken. [3]. It is not disputed that the tax effect in the present appeal

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, vs. AYYAPPA INFRA PROJECTS PVT LTD.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

143(3) on 17.12.2010 raising a demand of Rs.5,15,095/-. A sum of Rs.23,48,979/- for the CAD documentation and other charges, the petitioner was required to explain why the expense should not be disallowed as the petitioner did not deduct TDS on the said amount. The assessing authority thereafter added this amount