The Commissioner of Income Tax III, vs. M/s. Swagath Seeds Private Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

cash deficit amount? viii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside disallowance made on account of amounts deposited by cheques to an extent of Rs.84,61,055/- even when the assessee failed to explain the said deposit with proper material? 5 2. The facts giving rise

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

gains‟ in their hands in their returns would not be relevant in deciding the issue whether the payment by the Assessee should be treated as „business expenditure.‟ As explained by the Madras High Court in CIT v. Sarda Binding Works 102 ITR 187 (Mad), it is the point of view of the payer which is relevant. 37. The decision

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

gains‟ in their hands in their returns would not be relevant in deciding the issue whether the payment by the Assessee should be treated as „business expenditure.‟ As explained by the Madras High Court in CIT v. Sarda Binding Works 102 ITR 187 (Mad), it is the point of view of the payer which is relevant. 37. The decision

THEE COMMSSR.OF INCOME TAX.HYD. vs. CHALLA SHANKER REDDY.HYD.

Bench: L.NARASIMHA REDDY,T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

cash was deposited therein by Rajeswar Rao on 31.09.1994' The deposit slips are part of the t, record. The statement of SOD account of the resPondent No'2 shows that an amount of Rs.4,91,511/- was transferred to the account of the appellant No.1 on the same day' The appellant No'1/Image Developers has not shown any material

COMMR.OF I.T. RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/S.NARAYANA CHOWDARYAND ORS KAKINADA

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

cash was deposited therein by Rajeswar Rao on 31.09.1994' The deposit slips are part of the t, record. The statement of SOD account of the resPondent No'2 shows that an amount of Rs.4,91,511/- was transferred to the account of the appellant No.1 on the same day' The appellant No'1/Image Developers has not shown any material

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - (TDS), vs. M/s. Suman Chit Funds (P) Ltd.,

cash was deposited therein by Rajeswar Rao on 31.09.1994' The deposit slips are part of the t, record. The statement of SOD account of the resPondent No'2 shows that an amount of Rs.4,91,511/- was transferred to the account of the appellant No.1 on the same day' The appellant No'1/Image Developers has not shown any material

Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. The Agrasen Coop. Urban Bank Ltd.,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

gains from the business of banking by deposit of surplus funds of the bank is concerned, there cannot be any distinction between SLR reserves and non-SLR reserves although the maintenance of cash reserve and SLR are obligatory under below referred provisions of the RBI Act and the BR Act. Section 45 of the Societies Act lays down the method

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S The A.P.Mahesh Coop. Urban Bank Ltd,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

gains from the business of banking by deposit of surplus funds of the bank is concerned, there cannot be any distinction between SLR reserves and non-SLR reserves although the maintenance of cash reserve and SLR are obligatory under below referred provisions of the RBI Act and the BR Act. Section 45 of the Societies Act lays down the method

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/s. The A.P.Vardhaman(Mahila)Cooperative Urban

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

gains from the business of banking by deposit of surplus funds of the bank is concerned, there cannot be any distinction between SLR reserves and non-SLR reserves although the maintenance of cash reserve and SLR are obligatory under below referred provisions of the RBI Act and the BR Act. Section 45 of the Societies Act lays down the method

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. The Andhra Bank Employees Co.Operative Bank Limited

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

gains from the business of banking by deposit of surplus funds of the bank is concerned, there cannot be any distinction between SLR reserves and non-SLR reserves although the maintenance of cash reserve and SLR are obligatory under below referred provisions of the RBI Act and the BR Act. Section 45 of the Societies Act lays down the method

The Commisioner of Income TAx-1 vs. Divya Shakti Granites Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

capital gains tax, etc., the official figure should be lesser. In a sense, to that extent, it is a case of tax avoidance which is culpable both legally and morally. One cannot gainfully argue that it is a case of tax planning, intent being corrupt. However, that has been done at the instance of the 1st defendant, at whose hands

Sampathirao Apparao vs. Income Tax Officer,

The appeals stand dismissed

capital gain arising out of sale proceeds of house, thus, Assessing Officer requested Commissioner of Income Tax for adjustment of seized amount towards the tax liability of appellants. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar vide letter dated 26.06.2009 permitted Assessing Officer to adjust seized cash against tax liability of appellants. The Assessing Officer, accordingly, adjusted seized cash against

M/s. Kamma Sangaham, vs. The Director of Income -Tax (Exemptions),

gain earned on the sale of the above shares of JCT Electronics Pvt. Ltd. was disclosed. The computation of income is filed at assessee's paper book pages 310 and 311. 6. Further, in the previous year relevant to AY 1993-94 the assessee advanced a sum of Rs. 12.30 cr. to its subsidiary Chohal Investments

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri P.Sarveswara Rao

Appeals are partly allowed, in view of the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

cash or kind to the assessee other than subsidy or grant or reimbursement which is taken into account determining the actual cost of the asset, is deemed to be income. It was submitted that this amendment clarifies the intent of Parliament which is that the assistance received otherwise than towards capital augmentation or creation is deemed to be income. This

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX vs. M/S V.SATAYANARAYANA

The appeal is allowed

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

cash of Rs. 300/- as paid by the complainant to the appellant was not as bribe but it was towards the Recurring Account which was to be deposited. iv. The appellant was neither a dealing assistant nor authorized to transfer or include the name in the accounts in question and as such, the question of demanding any illegal gratification

M/s. Maruthi Movies vs. Income Tax Officer

Bench: This Court & Making The Same A Rule Of Court, Alongwith Decree Against Respondents Awarding Rs.5,35,920/- Paid By The Petitioner To The Arbitrator As Their Share Of Fees As Per Order Dated 21.12.2010. 2. Respondent No.1 Has Filed Its Objections To The Award Under Section 30 & 33 Of The Act In Form Of I.A. No.9067/2011. Respondent No.2 Has Also Filed Its Objections To The Award.

Capital of only Rs.2000/- and did not even have a bank account on the date of entering into the Agreement. They submit that even the amount of Rs.1.25 lac stated to have been deposited with the L&DO was infact paid by Mr.R.Ganguly and not by the petitioner. They submit that therefore, the petitioner was neither ready nor willing

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Shri Raaj Kumar Jain

deposition is obliged in law to prove the contents of the panchnama and it is only if the investigating officer has successfully proved the contents of the discovery panchnama in accordance with law, then in that case the prosecution may be justified in relying upon such evidence and the trial court may also accept the evidence. In the present case