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

The appeals are dismissed

bogus purchase to maximize payment of duty in cash. In fact, when other units in the country avails CENVAT Credit o f say 68% of total duty (32% in PLA), there cannot be any plausible reasons to a vail credit to say 24% (76% in PLA) by units in these areas. This analysis clear ly brings out a fact that

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2. Manchharam Sobhraj Vs. Jamnadas Mulchand, 1975 GLR 898; 3. Bhagwandas Trilokchand Vs. Bhungodomal Zamatmal, 2000 (3) GCD 2348; 4. Lilaram Jamiatrai and others Vs. Meghraj Hardasmal Kalwani and others, AIR 1972 Gujarat 66; 6. In rejoinder, Mr.Mehta, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the decisions cited by the otherside are factually different and, therefore, they

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

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-VI vs. M/s. Narpat Girji Constructions,

The appeal is allowed

15 days. The application was filed on 27.07.2011 by the - 27 - OSA No. 19 of 2015 official liquidator whereas the limitation as provided under Section 58 of the Limitation Act read with Section 458A of the Companies Act got expired on 04.04.2008. Therefore, the Company Court was right in holding that the application was barred by limitation. 35. Learned Senior

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, 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 -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

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

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