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

The appeal stands dismissed

27,000/- without any justification for the same. ii. Whether the tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.15,19,340/- being commission paid by it to M/s. Mrigiya Electronics Industries Private Limited for giving accommodation entries, when it was deposed by it’s Director that the company was involved in providing accommodation entries after charging commission

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

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

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 Counsel has further submitted that the transfer of the assets

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

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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

bogus or sham all factors are required to be taken into consideration and in this case from facts on record, it appears that the partnership is sham and it is used as a devise to protect the tenacy right. Regarding revisional jurisdiction, he has submitted that the powers of the revisional court though limited but if it is found from

M/s Sri Surya Constructions vs. The Income Tax Officer

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

bogus. The same is a matter of trial regarding the authenticity of the documents. The Court only has to see whether there is a cause of action in favour of the plaintiff to continue with the suit. 20. Hence, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has clarified that while determining any application filed under Order VII Rule