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

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Sri Anand Prakash Sanghi

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

132 of the Act at the premises of the assessee on 6.8.2003, notice ITA 33/10 -3- was issued under Section 153A read with Section 153C of the Act on 5.8.2004. The assessee filed a return on 27.12.2004 declaring 'nil' income, consequent to which notice was issued under Section 143(2) and assessment completed making an addition of Rs.1

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(Central) vs. M/s.Madhu Enterprises

Bench: The Learned

132 of the Act on persons constituting the FIITJEE Group. The Assessee was also one of the persons searched. Thereafter, the AO issued a notice dated 13.08.2013 under Section 153A of the Act and during the ensuing proceedings, examined the claim of the Assessee for deduction under Section 54F of the Act. 6. The AO passed an assessment order dated

SRI PRASANCHAND SURANA SEC.BAD

Appeal is dismissed

1) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in in entertaining and allowing the application filed by the assessee under section 254(2) of the Income tax Act,1961 and holding that amount of Rs 13,62,865/- was not undisclosed income and further directing the assessing officer to assess the said amount while framing regular

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

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

1 and 2 companies and certain other individuals as Directors of 4 listed companies, 3 subsidiaries of one listed company and an unlisted company is bad in law since the Joint APLs merely represents the estate of PDB and thus, had no rights to seek appointment of Directors in companies in which PDB was not a "Member". Further, without prejudice

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

1. 1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Secretary, Department of Industries, Mines and Geology, having its office at Yojna Bhawan, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand), PIN 834 002. 2. The Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Jharkhand Mantralaya (Project Building), PO. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand), 3. The Director, Mines