The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, vs. M/S V.J.Equipment Limited,

Bench: Charging The Interest U/S 234B & 234C Of The It Act?” 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Firm Is Engaged In The Business Of Precious & Semi Precious Stones & It Is A 100% Exporter. During The

purchases from above parties were established to be bogus after making in depth enquiries by the AO. During the course

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri Byru Venkateswarlu

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

bogus purchases of cut goods shown in the name of the said two parties, it is to stated that the sources

The Commissioner of Income Tax- I vs. M/s Auctus Pharma Pvt. Ltd.,

The appeal stands disposed of

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

bogus purchases made by the assessee and consequent rejection of books of accounts? (2 of 3) [ITA-505/2011] 2. Whether

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s. Meghadoot Drillers,

bogus purchase? 2. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal has committed a gross

COMM. OF INCOME TAX HYD vs. N.K.ESTATES P LTD

The appeal stands disposed off

bogus purchase, judgment of 2nd November, 2016, passed in DB Income Tax Appeal No. 430/2009 (Commissioner of Income Tax-Jaipur

THE PRL COMMR OF ICOME TAX-2, vs. M/S KKD CO-OP BUILDING SOCY LTD., KAKINADA

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

bogus persons. As per his deposition, he purchased 500 photographs from different studios for obtaining PAN Cards. He also deposed

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [TDS] vs. M/s.KCIL-MEIL [JV]

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

purchasers of live chicken shown as per Form 8 B Bills are bogus or non-existent. All 6 dealers/assessees are members

The Pr. Commissioner of income Tax-4 vs. M/s. Pavani Structurals Pvt. Ltd.

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

Bench: :

purchase of the said scrip by the assessee was managed and fabricated to claim bogus loss ? We have heard Mr. Soumen

The Commissioner of Income Tax -III vs. Sri T.C. Reddy

The appeal stands dismissed

bogus payment shown by the assessee to M/s. Mrigiya Electronics Industries Private Limited for purchasing land of Rs.4,35,60,000/- for Rs.11

AVANTI FEEDS LTD., vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX

The appeal is dismissed, and the stay petition

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

purchase and sale 2 of penny stocks i.e. BLUE CIRCLE & CCL INTERNATIONAL featuring in the list of ‘Bogus Capital Loss

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Jayalakshmi Chits

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

purchases   and   sales  have   genuinely   taken   place   and   the   short   term  capital loss claimed by the assessee is genuine. I  shall   revert   to   the   question   of   sale   on   market  rate   or   otherwise  in   the   following   paras,  after  first   deciding   the   alternate   finding   of   the  assessing officer that if not a bogus

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S Gulf Oil Corporation Pvt. Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

purchases   and   sales  have   genuinely   taken   place   and   the   short   term  capital loss claimed by the assessee is genuine. I  shall   revert   to   the   question   of   sale   on   market  rate   or   otherwise  in   the   following   paras,  after  first   deciding   the   alternate   finding   of   the  assessing officer that if not a bogus

The Commissioner of Income Tax - VI vs. M/s. Manikanta Iron AND Hardware

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

purchases   and   sales  have   genuinely   taken   place   and   the   short   term  capital loss claimed by the assessee is genuine. I  shall   revert   to   the   question   of   sale   on   market  rate   or   otherwise  in   the   following   paras,  after  first   deciding   the   alternate   finding   of   the  assessing officer that if not a bogus

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

purchase and sale of shares of certain companies and gifts from certain persons, which in fact never took place. The assessee was alleged to be one of the beneficiaries, figuring in 3 the list supplied by the Investigation Wing, Agra. Since the transactions of share trading were found to be bogus

The Commissioner of Income -Tax - III, vs. Shri Taher Ali

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

bogus complaint dated 12.10.1990 to B.M.C. authorities as defendant no.2 had filed affidavit dated 10.9.1990 in favour of one of the tenants, Smt. Vasanti B. Palan in Suit (ST) 647 of 1990. Defendant no.2, by his Advocates' letter dated 28.10.1990 had placed various facts on record. On 8.11.1990, B.M.C. authorities issued notice under section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Chirla Rama Reddy, Contract

Appeal is dismissed with costs

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice N.K.Sudhindrarao R.S.A.No.70/2007

purchase the entire estate. After due deliberations, both parties reached consensus, under which, 1st defendant agreed to sell the “Tataguni Estate” to the plaintiff- Company. Accordingly, 1st defendant executed sale agreement dated 30.07.1991 agreeing to sell the plaint schedule property. The said agreement was also filed before the authorities of income tax under Chapter XX-C of the Income

M/S VAIBHAV vs. JOINT COMM. OF INCOME TAX RANGE 3 HYD

Appeal is allowed and the judgments and decrees passed by the

Bench: The Learned Trial Court) Was Allowed & The Judgment & Decree Dated 12.12.2000, Passed By Learned Senior Sub Judge, Kullu Was Set-Aside. (Parties Shall Hereinafter Be Referred To In

bogus, as she never paid the 14 consideration for the sale though she admitted the execution of the sale deed before the Registrar. Her story that she was ignorant of the nature of the transaction, it was held, cannot be accepted as she had admitted the execution of the sale deed before the Registrar. 11. A Division Bench of this

The Commissioner of Income Tax V vs. M/s.Orchem Industries

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

bogus or sham all factors are required to be taken into consideration and in this case from facts on record, it appears that the partnership is sham and it is used as a devise to protect the tenacy right. Regarding revisional jurisdiction, he has submitted that the powers of the revisional court though limited but if it is found from