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

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 not maintained? 3) Whether the ITAT was justified in upholding the action of CIT (A) in directing to adjust the MAT credit before charging the interest u/s 234B and 234C

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s. Meghadoot Drillers,

5. Whether the order of the Tribunal is perverse in holding that the purchases made from three parties are genuine ignoring the clinching evidence brought on record that such parties do not exist at the given address and the alleged purchases are not found recorded in RG 23A Part I and other relevant registers verified by the Central Excise Authorities

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

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

5. There are two preconditions for initiating proceedings under Section 340 CrPC: (i) materials produced before the court must make out a prima facie case for a complaint for the purpose of inquiry into an offence referred to in clause (b)(i) of sub- section (1) of Section 195 CrPC, and (ii) it is expedient in the interests of justice

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

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

purchase and sale of shares of certain companies and gifts from certain persons, which in fact never took place. The assessee was alleged to be one of the beneficiaries, figuring in 3 the list supplied by the Investigation Wing, Agra. Since the transactions of share trading were found to be bogus and, therefore, entire amount claimed to have been received

Commissioner of Income tax-VI vs. M/s. Narpat Girji Constructions,

The appeal is allowed

5 years and 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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

5. Per contra, Mr.H. M. Parikh, learned counsel for the respondents – original defendants has submitted that this is a revision application wherein the power of this Court is very much limited and the scope of interference in the finding of facts is limited Page 6 of 36 C/CRA/79/2007 JUDGMENT one. He has submitted that if from the record

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

5. Whether the sale deed dated 19.1.1995 is a result of fraud and misrepresentation and not binding on the plaintiff? OPP. 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction as prayed? OPP. 7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of ₹50,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% as alleged? OPP. 7 8. Whether

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

The appeal stands dismissed

5 SCC 545 taken into consideration or inadmissible evidence has been taken into consideration or legal principles have not been applied in appreciating the evidence, or when the evidence has been misread. (See: Madan Lal Vs. Mst. Gopi & Anr.4; Narendra Gopal Vidyarthi Vs. Rajat Vidyarthi5; Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Vs. Vijay Dasharath Patel6; Metroark Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Nama Nageshwar Rao

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

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 it was listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange. Assessee sold these shares

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Jayalakshmi Chits

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

5 of 41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT an appeal before the CIT (A) contending that  the entire loss has wrongly been denied to be  set   off   against   the   other   incomes   of   the  assessee.   The   assessee   made   several  submissions before the CIT (A). The CIT (A)  thereafter  allowed  the  loss  claimed  by  the  assessee except to the tune of Rs.75,000/­ in  respect

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S Gulf Oil Corporation Pvt. Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

5 of 41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT an appeal before the CIT (A) contending that  the entire loss has wrongly been denied to be  set   off   against   the   other   incomes   of   the  assessee.   The   assessee   made   several  submissions before the CIT (A). The CIT (A)  thereafter  allowed  the  loss  claimed  by  the  assessee except to the tune of Rs.75,000/­ in  respect

The Commissioner of Income Tax - VI vs. M/s. Manikanta Iron AND Hardware

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

5 of 41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT an appeal before the CIT (A) contending that  the entire loss has wrongly been denied to be  set   off   against   the   other   incomes   of   the  assessee.   The   assessee   made   several  submissions before the CIT (A). The CIT (A)  thereafter  allowed  the  loss  claimed  by  the  assessee except to the tune of Rs.75,000/­ in  respect

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