The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Supriya Wines

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

penalty and prosecution is prescribed therein. He further submits that section 277 of the Income Tax Act speaks of false statement filed by any assessee. He further submits that section 278(E) of the Act speaks of culpable state of mind. He further submits that there is allegation against the petitioners that the petitioners have obtained Long Term Capital Gain

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Sri Anil Harnathka

Bench: The Tribunal & The Tribunal On The Ground Of The Assessee'S Mother Having Filed A Return Conceding Capital Gains, Set Aside The Addition Of Rs.60 Lakhs As Against The Assessee. By Annexure-A, The Assessment Of The Assessee Was Completed Taking As Undisclosed Income, Various Credits In The Bank Account Between 08.08.2005 & 23.11.2005. Out Of The Total Amount Of Rs.98,18,244/-, Rs.60,00,000/- According To The Assessee Represented The Unaccounted Receipt On The Sale Of The Property By His Mother. The Property Is Said To Have Actually Fetched Rs.74,00,000/- & The Mother, The Owner Of

capital gains tax at the hands of the mother. The fact remains that the amounts were credited to the account of the assessee and it remained as undisclosed income insofar as the assessee having returned only Rs.1,17,830/- in the subject assessment year. I.T.A.No.24 of 2014 - 4 - 4. The learned Counsel for the assessee would in fact point

PRL COMMR OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. K RAVINDER REDDY, HYDERABAD

In the result, this Cr.M.P

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Capital Gain during the Financial Year 2013-14 relevant to Assessment Year 2014-15; and the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner attempted to evade tax. A complaint was filed against the petitioner by the Union of India through the concerned officer being the Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Unit-II, Ranchi in the court of learned Special

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, vs. Sri Prem Chand

penalty, he however, submitted that there is no cross-objection of the respondent-Department in this matter. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the present revision petitions of the assessee. 10. I have heard the learned counsels of the parties at length and perused the record and the judgments cited at the Bar. 11. Firstly, the relevant extract from

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

Commissioner of Income Tax II vs. P. Govinda Rao

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Us. For Convenience We Are Noticing The Facts Of Appeal Bearing D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.67/2007, Rajasthan Art Emporium V. Dcit, Circle, Jodhpur.

capital of the concerned associates of the assessee firm, for substaining additions made by the Assessing Officer, are finding based on conjectures and surmises when actual payment having been made to two registered companies by the assessee firm was not even in doubt? 2. Whether the extent of any expenses to be incurred for expanding business is within the domain

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

The appeal stands dismissed

capital of the company. This fact was brought to the notice of the assessee vide order sheet entry dated 29.12.2009. No satisfactory reply has been filed. It is therefore, disallowed from the revenue expenses claimed by the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s271(1)(c) r.w 274 of the Income-tax Act for concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars are initiated separately

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Nara Constructions,

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

gains of business or profession" (before making any deduction under this clause) carried to such reserve account: Provided that where the aggregate of the amounts carried to such reserve account from time to time exceeds twice the amount of the paid up share capital and of the general reserves of the specified entity, no allowance under this clause shall

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

penalty. The circumstances of the case would, therefore, require a careful scrutiny in order to ascertain whether the confession is voluntary or not ? 133. The factual background leading to the recording of confession is enumerated hereinafter:- (i) Accused SK is arrested in connection with FIR No.838 of 2006, under Section 363, 366 IPC concerning the disappearance

PRL COMMR OF INCOME TAX, RJY, E.G.DIST vs. M/S KADAKATLA RICE MILL, TADEPALLIGUDEM, W.G.DIST

Bench: The Income Tax Settlement Commission/Respondent No. 1 On 8Th April, 2015 For Settlement Of Its Income Tax Matters By Disclosing An Income Of Rs. 3,93,93,544/-. The Aforesaid Application Of The Respondent No. 2 Was Proceeded With Under Section 245 D (1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By An Order Dated 21St April, 2015. After Receipt Of The Report Under Section 245 D (2B) Of The Act, From The

capital @ 2% which works out to Rs. 7,80,000/-. The same shall also be included in addition to Rs. 12,606/- as per Tax Audit Report.” Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner/Income Tax Authority in support of his contention and against the impugned order of the Settlement Commission apart from its Report under Rule 9 of Income Tax Settlement

PR COMMR OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. K RAVINDER REDDY, HYDERABAD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

gains in connection with the business of exploration, etc. of mineral oils/operation of aircraft in the case of non- ITA 621/2017 & connected matters Page 78 of 85 residents. In our considered opinion, the approach of the AO in estimating income at 10% of sales made in India, in the given circumstances, is perfectly in order and does not require

M/s Durga Granites, vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1,

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

gain as General Manager (HR&A) "Bidyut Unnayan Bhaban", Plot No. 3/C, LA Block, Sector-III, P.O. - Salt Lake City, P.S.- Bidhannagar, District- Kolkata, West Bengal, PIN – 700106 ..........Petitioner. -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, having its office at Yojna Bhawan, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand