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

purchases from the alleged three parties on theoretical platform ignoring the fact that the books of accounts of the assessee were rejected u/s 145(3) and the assessee has accepted the discrepencies during the survey operation u/s. 133A and has surrendered a sum of Rs. 57,00,000/- in assessment year 2004-05 and Rs. 20,00,000/- in assessment

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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

business for capital gain. 8.5. The   assessee,   being   aggrieved   and  dissatisfied with the assessment order, filed  Page 5 of 41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT an appeal before the CIT (A) contending that  the entire loss has wrongly been denied to be  set   off   against   the   other   incomes   of   the  assessee.   The   assessee   made   several  submissions before

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

business for capital gain. 8.5. The   assessee,   being   aggrieved   and  dissatisfied with the assessment order, filed  Page 5 of 41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT an appeal before the CIT (A) contending that  the entire loss has wrongly been denied to be  set   off   against   the   other   incomes   of   the  assessee.   The   assessee   made   several  submissions before

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

business for capital gain. 8.5. The   assessee,   being   aggrieved   and  dissatisfied with the assessment order, filed  Page 5 of 41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT an appeal before the CIT (A) contending that  the entire loss has wrongly been denied to be  set   off   against   the   other   incomes   of   the  assessee.   The   assessee   made   several  submissions before

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

income tax returns filed by the dealer are contradictory. The circumstances relied on by the Revenue for imposing penalty under Section 67 of the Act are not adverted to in our judgment, for, the views/conclusions taken by the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal on the question of violation of principles of natural justice are mainly reviewed. The dealer aggrieved

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

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

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

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

bogus. The same is a matter of trial regarding the authenticity of the documents. The Court only has to see whether there is a cause of action in favour of the plaintiff to continue with the suit. 20. Hence, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has clarified that while determining any application filed under Order VII Rule

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

Income Tax Authorities nor had she executed an absolute sale deed. The entire agreement of sale and sale deed arc nothing but sham and bogus and a collusive job of K.T. Bhagath, the Managing Director of the K.T.Plantations and R.Devdas and Jude Devdas. The agreements to sell and deed of sale were vitiated by fraud and were unenforceable

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