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

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

search and seizure operation, it was found that the petitioner had claimed huge Bogus Long Term Capital Gain during the Financial

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Nama Nageshwar Rao

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

capital gain on the ground that the evidences found during search at the premises of entry provider cannot be the basis for making additions in assessment completed u/S. 153A in the case of beneficiary ignoring the vital fact that there was a common search u/s 132 conducted on the same day in both the cases of the entry provider

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

search and seizure operation in the residence of the petitioner, it was found that the petitioner had (2025:JHHC:23824) 2 Cr. M.P. No.590 of 2017 claimed huge Bogus Long Term Capital Gain

The Commissioner of Income Tax(Central) vs. M/s.Madhu Enterprises

Bench: The Learned

capital gains — was invested in acquiring a residential house property bearing the address E- 27, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi [the new asset]. 5. On 17.12.2012, a search and seizure

SRI PRASANCHAND SURANA SEC.BAD

Appeal is dismissed

capital gain taking the sale price of land at Rs. 1821101/-. However, the notice was issued on 22.01.1997 u/s 158BD of the Act which means the assessee filed his revised returns prior to the date of receipt of notice. 6. The Tribunal has observed in para 8 of the impugned order as under: “8. ... However a perusal of assessment order

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s.Mold-Tek Technologies Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

search and seizure powers and are invariably subjected to Parliamentary or legislative oversight. The primary object for setting up such regulatory bodies would be to ensure general public utility. The prescribing of standards, and enforcing those standards, through accreditation and continuing supervision through inspection etc., cannot be considered as trade, business or commercial activity, merely because the testing procedures

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

Capital) Appeal No. 1475 of 2009 corresponding to Reference No. 3 of 2009, by a co-ordinate bench of this Court on 11th September, 2009. The judgment of this Court in 'XYZ' has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. (s). 2227 of 2010, decided on 15.2.2011, with summary dismissal of appeal. 15. Separate and distinct trials

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

The appeal is allowed

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

Capital Territory of Delhi)16 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows : 16. On the said aspect, we would now refer to Section 20 of the Act which reads as under: ―20. Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration.—(1) Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 7 or Section 11 or clause