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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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   of   the   shares   of   Mysore   Cement   by  holding as under: “11.   After   going   through   rival   contentions   and  after personally hearing Shri

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

AVANTI FEEDS LTD., vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX

The appeal is dismissed, and the stay petition

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

set aside the order of CIT(A) by allowing the appeal of the assessee without appreciating the vital fact that the assessee entered into such transactions of purchase and sale 2 of penny stocks i.e. BLUE CIRCLE & CCL INTERNATIONAL featuring in the list of ‘Bogus Capital Loss

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

The appeal stands dismissed

loss of Rs.12,218.73 is reflected in the P& L a/c. Audit report & ITR-V of M/s. Mrigiya Electronics Industries P Ltd. is annexed with this order as Annexure-A.” 4.1. Taking into consideration the above factual position the AO held as under:- 16. The assessee has claimed expenditure under various heads. These expenditures have been charged to project work

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

set aside. 8. Mr. K.Srikumar appearing for the dealer, to sustain the finding recorded by the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal, has placed before us the tabular statement showing the allegations in the notice issued under Section 67 of the Act, OT.REV 212/2015 -9- the findings of the Primary Authority, and the findings of the Tribunal which confirmed the findings

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

set aside and consequently, the suit of the plaintiff came to be decreed as prayed for declaring that the sale deed dated 16-2-1992 executed by 1st defendant –Mme Devika Rani Roerich in favour of plaintiff-Company is valid and binding and restraining the defendants from transferring the suit schedule property to any Trust, Society or any other person

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