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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

13(1)(e) were satisfied and were proved, on the basis of evidence on record, which has been properly believed by the Trial Court. 4.4 In support of his submissions, Mr.Mehta, learned advocate has relied upon the following decisions. 1. Vaishakhi Ram and Others Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Bhatiani, AIR 2008 SC 1585; 2. Mohammedkasam Haji Gulambhai Vs. Bakerali Fatehali

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

Section 100 CPC is directed against the common judgment and decree dated 7-10-2006 passed in R.A.Nos.33 and 35 of 2002 by the District and Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court –II, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, wherein appeal filed by the plaintiff -K.T. Plantations Private Limited in RA 3 No.33/2002 came to be allowed

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

bogus and unexplained income of the assessee from undisclosed sources vide assessment order dated 5th December, 2006 under Sections 144 and 147 of the Act. 7. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee had filed an appeal before the first appellate authority. The first appellant authority vide order dated 9th September, 2009 cancelled the said assessment order, declaring the same

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

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

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

3. Whether the learned Appellate Court has wrongly decreed the suit of the plaintiff in the absence of plaintiff not stepping into witness box in support of his case and mere deposition of G.P.A. is sufficient to prove the case of the plaintiff? 12. I have heard Mr Bimal Gupta, learned Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Varun Thakur, Advocate

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

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

13 secured creditors 4,83,69,918/- 2. Amount payable to Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., (Secured Creditor) 50,52,521/- 3. Workmen 1,22,67,210/- 4. Gratuity Amount payable to Employees (as per the details furnished by The Mysore Kirloskar Employees' Gratuity Fund Trust, Yantrapur, Harihar 15,05,21,361/- 20,39,43,800/- 5. Amount payable to staff

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