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 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,

purchases from the alleged three parties on theoretical platform ignoring the fact that the books of accounts of the assessee were rejected u/s 145(3) and the assessee has accepted the discrepencies during the survey operation u/s. 133A and has surrendered a sum of Rs. 57,00,000/- in assessment year 2004-05 and Rs. 20,00,000/- in assessment

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

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

7. The parties were called upon to produce the evidence and the plaintiff examined Bhuvneshwar Dutt (PW-1), Durga Devi, General Power of Attorney of the plaintiff (PW-2) and Hukam Singh (PW-3). The defendant examined Bhuvneshwar Dutt (DW-1), Dola Ram Thakur (DW-2) and himself (DW-3). 8. The Learned Trial Court held that the sale deed

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-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

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 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

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. 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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

7. Mr. Mohammed Rafiq, keeping in perspective the order dated 22.12.2015 and also the scope of revision under Section 63 of the Act, argued with sufficient emphasis two grounds viz. remand by the Deputy Commissioner as illegal and violation of principles of natural justice that were unsuccessfully raised by the Revenue before the Tribunal. Stated, it is argued that

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 -III vs. Sri T.C. Reddy

The appeal stands dismissed

7 178 8 Smt. Ashu Chaudhary 6.4.06 2000000 500000 7120000 8 179/1 9.80 Smt. Anita Gupta 5.4.06 2450000 500000 8722000 9 179/2 9.80 Smt. Kavita Goyal 5.4.06 2450000 300000 8722000 1 184 8.85 Smt. 7.4.06 2225000 500000 7876500 “8. On preliminary study of the audit report of M/s. Mrigiya Electronics Industries P Ltd. it was noticed that the audit report

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

The appeal is allowed

purchase the same. The said application has been dismissed by this Court on 30th September 2008. Being aggrieved by the same, OSA 27/2008 was filed by the applicant-society and the same was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 28th January 2009 observing as under: “Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere

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

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