Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Nama Nageshwar Rao

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

capital gain. 3. A search was conducted u/s. 132 on 18th November, 2015 at the premises of the Assessee {being Anand Kumar Jain (HUF), its coparceners and relatives} as well as at the premises of one Pradeep Kumar Jindal. During the search, statement of Pradeep Kumar Jindal was recorded on oath u/s. 132(4) on the same date, wherein

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

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

section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 22.07.2015. (ii). It has been alleged that during course of search and seizure operation, it was found that the petitioner had 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 operation was carried out under Section 132

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

SRI PRASANCHAND SURANA SEC.BAD

Appeal is dismissed

capital gains of Rs. 1362865/- as undisclosed income of the assessee. He submitted that the present appeal lacks merit and therefore deserves to be dismissed. 4.1 Mr. Soparkar has drawn the attention of this Court to Page 4 of 6 O/TAXAP/60/2000 JUDGMENT sections 158A(2) and 158BD of the Act and the explanation which was inserted with effect from

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Laila Impex,

Accordingly answered against the Revenue. The appeals fail and are dismissed, without

Capital gains") for— (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property ; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade

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

M/s. Canara Securities Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO,T.AMARNATH GOUD

Section 178 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the Chairman of the company, HVL cannot arrogate unto himself the power to cause such appointment when such power ultimately rests with the Board of Directors. The observation of the two Joint APLs that the evident performance of BCrL, the flagship company of MP Birla Group is deteriorating ever since, HVL became

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

132, 134 & 136, Khata No. 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 16 & 25, P.O. Maluti, P.S. Shikaripara, District- Dumka, PIN 816103, (Jharkhand), through its Director, namely Ganesh Nagaraj, aged about 60 years, son of Ramaya Nagaraj, resident of Flat No. A 203, Hidden Treasurer Apartment, Raj Bhavan Road, Ayyappa Swamy Temple Lane, P.O. Somajiguda, P.S. Somajiguda, District Hyderabad, PIN 500082, (Andhra