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

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Hycons Infrastructure (India) Ltd.

The appeals are dismissed

Section 5A (1) of the Act of 1944, is invested wit h the power to curtail the concessions by modified notifications, but nonetheles s such notifications should be in public interest. The Supreme Court, in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd (supra) has laid down that promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine and yielded when equity so requires. When

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri Byru Venkateswarlu

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 271(1)(c) solely because the additions were confirmed in the quantum appeal, without examining the issue again in penalty proceedings with reference to the law and principles underlying the levy of penalty?” (2 of 10) [ITA-341/2005] 3. Counsel for the appellant has contended that the Assessing Officer has considered the case of the assessee and observed

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

1. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act') has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 17th June, 2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Agra Bench, Agra (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in ITA No.467/Agra/2009, Assessment Year (hereinafter referred

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Nama Nageshwar Rao

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

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 Tax Appellate Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as the ‘ITAT’] in ITA 5947/Del./2018, ITA No. 4723/Del./2018, ITA No. 5954/Del./2018

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

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 in die eye of law. This defendant reiterated that she has not handed over possession of the suit schedule property to respondent No. 1 and that

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

The appeal is allowed

purchaser or encumbrancer in good faith and for valuable consideration, if made within a period of one year before the presentation of a petition for winding up shall be void against the liquidator. 40. Section 531 is not in the respect of void transactions which are mentioned in Section 531A. The transactions in Section 531 are a distinct category other

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

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

1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT has not acted perversely in deleting the additions without apprechating the proviso to Section 69C and CBDT's circular dated 23.12.1998? 2) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT has not acted perversely in relying the books of accounts when the same were rejected

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

The appeal stands dismissed

1 (SC) wherein Supreme Court held as under:- “21. A finding of fact may give rise to a substantial question of law, inter alia, in the event the findings are based on no evidence and/or while arriving at the said finding, relevant admissible evidence has not been (2006) 5 SCC 545 taken into consideration or inadmissible evidence has been taken

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

bogus loss, it is  a speculative one. 13. It has been observed by the Assessing Officer  that the sale of shares appeared to be effected  without taking actual delivery. In Short, when the  shares were stated to have been sold i.e. the date  of selling, the assessee was not in possession of  these shares. But once a person is accepted

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

bogus loss, it is  a speculative one. 13. It has been observed by the Assessing Officer  that the sale of shares appeared to be effected  without taking actual delivery. In Short, when the  shares were stated to have been sold i.e. the date  of selling, the assessee was not in possession of  these shares. But once a person is accepted

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

bogus loss, it is  a speculative one. 13. It has been observed by the Assessing Officer  that the sale of shares appeared to be effected  without taking actual delivery. In Short, when the  shares were stated to have been sold i.e. the date  of selling, the assessee was not in possession of  these shares. But once a person is accepted

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter “CPC”), has been filed on behalf of petitioner seeking the following reliefs:- “(a) Revise the impugned order (Annexure P/1) under Sec.115 of the CPC, 1908 dated 26.09.22 of the Hon'ble ADJ of the South East Saket District Court in Computer Junction vs Gisil Designs (CS DJ 754/20169287116) whereby

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1. Thomson Group is a single entity Entire sales turnover of the Group (except meager sales turnover conceded by the Rose Poultry Farm) is shown as made to ultimate customers. ie., unregistered dealers and verification has confirmed that such addresses or purchasers of live chicken shown as per Form 8 B Bills are bogus or non-existent. All 6 dealers/assessees

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

1(e), the legal representatives of the original plaintiff supported the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court. He submitted that it was duly proved by the agreement (Ex.P-1) executed on the same day that no sale consideration had passed. The defendant had agreed to raise the construction of the house in lieu of the sale consideration

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

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

Bench: :

1 OD-5 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/96/2025 IA NO: GA/1/2025, GA/2/2025 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA VS R.C. SUPPLIERS PRIVATE LIMITED BEFORE : THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS) Date : 13th May, 2025 Appearance : Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv., Ms. Shradhya

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s. Labhan Finanve Limited

Bench: The Hon'Ble Court Of First Class Magistrate In Cmp No.3644/2008. Annexure Ii: True Copy Of The Statement Filed By The Petitioner Before The Hon'Ble Court Of First Class Magistrate. Annexure Iii: True Copy Of The Survey Report. Annexure Iv: True Copy Of The Statement Filed By The Petitioner Before The Hon'Ble Court Of First Class Magistrate. Annexure V: True Copy Of The Order Of The Judicial First Class Magistrate'S Court I, Rnakulam Dated 23.6.2009. // True Copy // Tks P.S. To Judge

purchased and therefore, they claimed for custody of the gold ornaments for the purpose of enquiry under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. To lend support to the claim for interim custody the first respondent in the latter Crl.M.C. produced 9 documents before the court below. After hearing the three petitions they were disposed of as per Annexure