The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri Byru Venkateswarlu

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Addition Rs.39,092/- ITAT Page 11 Bogus Purchase Rs.1,71,917/- 2-9 Salarly to Babu Bhai Rs.10,800/- 14 Disallowance of Dalali Rs.2,136/- 15” 6. Counsel for the appellant has further contended that the Gujarat High Court in the case of National Textiles vs. Commissioner of Income

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

bogus purchases and contended that the judgment of Vijay Proteins Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.8956/2015 decided on 06.04.2015 whereby the Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP and confirmed the order dated 09.12.2014 passed by the Gujarat High Court and other decisions of the High Court of Gujarat in the case of -3- Sanjay

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

The appeal stands disposed off

addition of Rs. 2,28,937/- on account of investment in purchases u/s 69 of the I.T. Act 1961, on the facts, which were not examined by the CIT (A), such a conclusion is not perverse and is sustainable in the eye of law? 3. The same question in respect of same assessee came up for consideration in tax appeal

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 and, therefore, entire amount claimed to have been received

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 and on the other hand, deleting the trading addition of Rs. 1,70,18,605/- without giving any finding for the same? 3. Though served none appeared for the respondent. 4. Counsel for the appellant contended that issue is now squarely covered by the decision of this

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

bogus payment of commission of sale of scrap on the basis of remand report even when the Assessing Officer verified part payment of commission and the balance amount remained unverifiable? 8. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,43,516/- made on account of alleged

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.11,95,27,000/- without any justification for the same. ii. Whether the tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.15,19,340/- being commission paid by it to M/s. Mrigiya Electronics Industries Private Limited for giving

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Nama Nageshwar Rao

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

purchased shares of an unlisted private company in 2010. This unlisted company then merged with another unlisted company, M/s Focus Industrial Resources Ltd. and shares of this merged entity were allotted to the Assessee. Subsequently, the merged entity allotted further bonus shares to the Assessee and thereafter it was listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange. Assessee sold these shares

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS R2 TO R4 AS PER VIDE ORDER DTD. 29/10/18 IN IA NO. 3/18 BY ADVS. SRI.P.R.AJITHKUMAR SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN SRI.K.SRIKUMAR SR. OTHER PRESENT: SPL. G.P TAXES MOHAMMED RAFIQ FOR THE PETITIONER THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OT.REV 212/2015

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 Bhattacharjee, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue. Though notice has been served on the respondent/assessee, none appears for the respondent. There is a delay of 307 days in filing the appeal. Though the explanation offered is not fully

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

incomes   of   the  assessee.   The   assessee   made   several  submissions before the CIT (A). The CIT (A)  thereafter  allowed  the  loss  claimed  by  the  assessee except to the tune of Rs.75,000/­ in  respect   of   the   shares   of   Mysore   Cement   by  holding as under: “11.   After   going   through   rival   contentions   and  after personally hearing Shri P.S. Vasava

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

incomes   of   the  assessee.   The   assessee   made   several  submissions before the CIT (A). The CIT (A)  thereafter  allowed  the  loss  claimed  by  the  assessee except to the tune of Rs.75,000/­ in  respect   of   the   shares   of   Mysore   Cement   by  holding as under: “11.   After   going   through   rival   contentions   and  after personally hearing Shri P.S. Vasava

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

incomes   of   the  assessee.   The   assessee   made   several  submissions before the CIT (A). The CIT (A)  thereafter  allowed  the  loss  claimed  by  the  assessee except to the tune of Rs.75,000/­ in  respect   of   the   shares   of   Mysore   Cement   by  holding as under: “11.   After   going   through   rival   contentions   and  after personally hearing Shri P.S. Vasava

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 Claims’ information data provided by the Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata? ii. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal was justified in law in allowing the appeal of the assessee and deleting the disallowance

M/s Sri Surya Constructions vs. The Income Tax Officer

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

additional court fee is not supplied within the period given by the Court, and where the Digitally Signed By:SARIKA BHAMOO VERMA Signing Date:19.08.2023 15:54:19 Signature Not Verified C.R.P. 11/2023 Page 8 of 14 suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. Rejection of the plaint in exercise of the powers

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

Commissioner of Income tax-VI vs. M/s. Narpat Girji Constructions,

The appeal is allowed

purchase the same. The said application has been dismissed by this Court on 30th September 2008. Being aggrieved by the same, OSA 27/2008 was filed by the applicant-society and the same was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 28th January 2009 observing as under: “Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere

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