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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. During the course of investigation, the Central Bureau of Investigation conducted a raid at the official premises of a Chartered Accountant, namely, Vinay Kumar Jalan (respondent no.2 herein) on 25.05.2011 and seized return papers of some persons, including the appellant, his wife and other family members. On 26.05.2011 the respondent

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

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

c. Whether the valuable properties of 6.29 acres along with all the assets, the buildings, structures, facilities, plant and machinery and other capital assets as described in the schedule of the lease deed, could have been leased out to a related party just before filing of the winding-up petition by the Ex- - 11 - OSA No. 19 of 2015 Management

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

The appeal stands dismissed

c) r.w 274 of the Income-tax Act for concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars are initiated separately. (iv) The assessee has booked various expenses of contractual nature, vide order sheet entry dated 29.12.2009, the assessee was asked to show cause why the same should not disallowed u/s40a(ia). In response thereto the assessee has only filed copy of bills

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-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

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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

bogus or such persons did not exist in such a circumstance the inference drawn by the intelligence officer appear to be unrealistic and bad in law". Over and above, we also concur with the finding of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) that no honest or a pain staking enquiry was done by the Intelligence Officer to ascertain whether the addressees shown

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

bogus, as she never paid the 14 consideration for the sale though she admitted the execution of the sale deed before the Registrar. Her story that she was ignorant of the nature of the transaction, it was held, cannot be accepted as she had admitted the execution of the sale deed before the Registrar. 11. A Division Bench of this

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