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, 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 vs. Shri Byru Venkateswarlu

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

3 has observed as under: “After hearing both the parties and on perusal of material available on record, it (4 of 10) [ITA-341/2005] appears that in quantum appeal (ITA No.1874 to 1877/JP/95) dated 26.09.2002 the Tribunal finally reduced the additions to Rs.2,23,945/- pertaining to the following components: Trading Addition Rs.39,092/- ITAT Page 11 Bogus Purchase

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

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee firm is engaged in the business of precious and semi precious stones and it is a 100% exporter. During the -2- course of assessment proceedings the AO has noticed that the assessee was not maintaining quantitative details of day to day purchases and manufacturing of the items. Further

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10% share cannot be said to be illegal. According to him, the partnership firm clearly contains agreement that the rent of the suit premises is to be paid by defendant No.1 and also paid by him. He has submitted that as a partner of the firm, it can be said that defendant No.1 is also in control and possession

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. Shri Taher Ali

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10 & 12 thereof. In paragraph 9 of that report, the Apex Court referred to Section 105 of the T.P.Act. Section 105 defines lease. It lays down that a lease of immovable property is a transfer of a right to enjoy such property, made for a certain time, express or implied, or in perpetuity, in consideration of a price paid

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

10. Section 60 of the Registration Act specifically provides that the certificate endorsed on the document, registered by the Registrar, shall not only be admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving that document has duly been registered in the manner provided under the Act but also that the facts mentioned in the document referred to in Section 59 have

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 67 of the Act, OT.REV 212/2015 -9- the findings of the Primary Authority, and the findings of the Tribunal which confirmed the findings of the Appellate Authority. To appreciate the fundamental omission in the procedure followed by the Primary Authority, we find it useful to state the details as follows: Sl no. Allegations in the proposal notice dated

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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

3 of 41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT 12.2.92 34.75 16.1.92 28.00 b) 5,000 2,01,250 19.2.92 40.25 9,80,000 16.1.92 Rs.4,43,750/­ c) 30,000 12,22,500 19.2.92 40.75 28 L & T 19,45,000 18.2.92 a) 10,000 194.50 21,30,000 b) 5,000 9,35,000 19.2.92 187.00 21.1.92 142.00 Rs.7,50,000/­ Total

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

3 of 41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT 12.2.92 34.75 16.1.92 28.00 b) 5,000 2,01,250 19.2.92 40.25 9,80,000 16.1.92 Rs.4,43,750/­ c) 30,000 12,22,500 19.2.92 40.75 28 L & T 19,45,000 18.2.92 a) 10,000 194.50 21,30,000 b) 5,000 9,35,000 19.2.92 187.00 21.1.92 142.00 Rs.7,50,000/­ Total

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

3 of 41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT 12.2.92 34.75 16.1.92 28.00 b) 5,000 2,01,250 19.2.92 40.25 9,80,000 16.1.92 Rs.4,43,750/­ c) 30,000 12,22,500 19.2.92 40.75 28 L & T 19,45,000 18.2.92 a) 10,000 194.50 21,30,000 b) 5,000 9,35,000 19.2.92 187.00 21.1.92 142.00 Rs.7,50,000/­ Total

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

The appeal stands dismissed

purchaser M/s MEIPL was going to develop th land relating to 12 partners. Therefore, the land in pieces was brought by assessee company. It is not a case of the department that in lieu of cheques any cash was withdrawn from the bank and the same has been returned to the assessee. The general statement recorded of the Director that

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

The appeal is allowed

10 - OSA No. 19 of 2015 LESSEE. Upon such conveyance conferring absolute title to the LESSEE, the LESSOR shall permit the right of passage to the staff members of the LESSEE, who may reside in the staff quarters of the LESSEE located within the residential colony premises of the LESSOR. The stamp duty, registration charges and other expenses

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