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

bogus purchases and contended that the judgment of Vijay Proteins Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.8956/2015 decided on 06.04.2015 whereby the Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP and confirmed the order dated 09.12.2014 passed by the Gujarat High Court and other decisions of the High Court of Gujarat in the case of -3- Sanjay

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

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-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

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

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

The appeal is allowed

9 of the Companies (Court) Rules. In Paragraph 11 of the said application, KIAMS submitted that the it would be constrained to get the property transferred into their name immediately, failing which, the Institution would not be recognized. It was also said that they were willing to pay - 13 - OSA No. 19 of 2015 the present market price

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

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

The Commissioner of Income -Tax - III, vs. Shri Taher Ali

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

9 of that report, the Apex Court referred to Section 105 of the T.P.Act. Section 105 defines lease. It lays down that a lease of immovable property is a transfer of a right to enjoy such property, made for a certain time, express or implied, or in perpetuity, in consideration of a price paid or promised, or of money

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

9 10. Being aggrieved from the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court below, the present appeal has been filed asserting that the learned First Appellate Court erred in reversing the well-reasoned judgment of the learned Trial Court. Learned First Appellate Court failed to appreciate that the defendant had not denied the carrying

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

The appeal stands dismissed

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 does not show any activity of land purchased or sale. Neither any profit on account of this activity was reflected

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

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

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