The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri Byru Venkateswarlu

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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 Tax reported in 249 ITR 0125 in para 21-24 has observed as under: “21. The provisions

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

purchased 500 photographs from different studios for obtaining PAN Cards. He also deposed that he got the signatures of his three juniors, namely, Jiwant Kumar Das, Binod Kumar Choudhary and Shri Manoranjan on the bogus files and a draft was prepared in respect of 500 bogus files. Curiously enough, the respondent no.2, while defending the case of “Dehati Ashtahpana Nyas

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

The appeal stands dismissed

JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Judgment 04/09/2017 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the department and cross objection of the assessee was partly allowed for statistical purposes. 2. This court while admitting the appeal on 19.10.2011 framed following substantial question of law:- “i. Whether

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

Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Appellant : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Varun Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate for respondents No.1(b) to 1(e). Rakesh Kainthla, Judge (Oral) The present appeal is directed against the judgment & decree dated 5.11.2001, passed by learned District Judge, Kullu, H.P., vide

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA) 1.These Tax Appeals are arising in case of Smt.  Sulochana V. Gupta and late Shri Vijaykumar  Gupta   for   the   Assessment   Year   1992­93,  raising   common   issues   and   are   admitted   by  framing the following question of law by the  Co­ordinate Bench of this Court vide an order  dated 08.05.2008 as under: “Whether in the facts and circumstances

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA) 1.These Tax Appeals are arising in case of Smt.  Sulochana V. Gupta and late Shri Vijaykumar  Gupta   for   the   Assessment   Year   1992­93,  raising   common   issues   and   are   admitted   by  framing the following question of law by the  Co­ordinate Bench of this Court vide an order  dated 08.05.2008 as under: “Whether in the facts and circumstances

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA) 1.These Tax Appeals are arising in case of Smt.  Sulochana V. Gupta and late Shri Vijaykumar  Gupta   for   the   Assessment   Year   1992­93,  raising   common   issues   and   are   admitted   by  framing the following question of law by the  Co­ordinate Bench of this Court vide an order  dated 08.05.2008 as under: “Whether in the facts and circumstances

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

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

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

JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO R.S.A.No.70/2007 BETWEEN: MRS. MARY JOYCE POONACHA W/O MR. M.A.POONACHA MAJOR, RESIDING AT No.111, GARDEN HOUSE, PRS LAYOUT, BANASAWADI BANGALORE – 560 047. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S. K.T.PLANTATIONS PVT.LTD., AT No.112, RICHMOND TOWERS No.12, RICHMOND ROAD BANGALORE – 560 025. 2. MR. R. DEVDAS FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN MAJOR

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

The appeal is allowed

justice." 17. The learned Company Court vide ordered dated 26.07.2005 rejected the application on the statement made by the learned counsel for the Official Liquidator that the property in occupation of the applicant was not the subject matter of auction sale and therefore, the Company Court held that the relief sought for in the application would not survive for consideration

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Nama Nageshwar Rao

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA ITA 23/2021 and connected matters Page 3 of 11 JUDGMENT [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING] SANJEEV NARULA, J (ORAL): 1. The present appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’] are directed against the common order dated 30th July, 2019 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned order’] passed by the Income