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

The appeals are dismissed

Section 5A of the Act. 2. It was submitted that as a result of the modification the manufacturers are r equired to pay duty on the full value of goods manufactured and cleared in the s ame manner as per existing scheme, but refund would be granted only to the exten t of duty paid on the actual value addition

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 29 of the Rent Act extends only to correct the errors of law or to remove legal infirmities in the impugned decree passed under the Bombay Rent Act. According to him, if the High Court accepts that the facts as they are referred to in the decision and finds no errors of law or infirmities, than which

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

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

Sections 73, 74 and 75 49 of the Indian Registration Act, indicate the formalities. 49. When the execution is denied by the seller after completing formalities of execution, the Sub- Registrar would get authority to admit the execution. The purchaser has a right to present the document for compulsory registration. In this case, it was not the case of refusing

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-IV vs. M/s. Meghadoot Drillers,

2 of 7) [ITA-473/2011] to explain or rebut the same? 4. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal should ought to have hold that the purchases from the alleged three parties are ingenuine solely on the basis that the material shown to be purchased from such parties does not find place

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 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

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 rejected by invoking provisions of section 145(3) of the Act as the assessee was unable to explain the purchases and the day to day quantitative tally of goods consumed was also

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 -III vs. Sri T.C. Reddy

The appeal stands dismissed

2% Sudesh Purohit 69317 Advertisement Vikalp Events & Promotion 77000 Advertisement Vyas Enterprises 22448 CD Presentation Sandeep Yadav 75000 Total 728438 Subject to the remarks above, the value of project work in progress as on 31.3.2007 declared by the assessee is re-calculated under: Description Value shoen by the assessee Disallowance as per discussion Value calculated as per above assessment order

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

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 vs. Sri Nama Nageshwar Rao

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Assessee 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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2. The dealer is engaged in the business of rearing Broiler Chicken Birds and its sale. The inspection of dealer’s books, by the Revenue disclosed that the dealer had undervalued the chicken for the purpose of account books and paid VAT thereon. In other words, suppression of actual sale value of chicken was resorted to resulting in evasion

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

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

Bench: :

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenging the order dated 29.11.2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in ITA No. 64/Kol/2023 for the assessment year 2014-15. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration : a) Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed substantial error

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

2 bank, whereas the last known address was available in the return filed by the petitioner, can be treated to be valid service? (B) Whether the proceedings in pursuance to the notice under Section 148 can be initiated without affecting service, which in accordance with Section 282 of the Income Tax Act, even if it is presumed can be made

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