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

Bench: The Learned

4. The Assessee filed her return of income for AY 2011-12 on 31.12.2011, declaring an income of ₹70,87,301/-. The Assessee also claimed a deduction of ₹90 crores under Section 54F of the Act asserting that the consideration received from the sale of shares of FIITJEE Ltd. — an unlisted company, the gains from which would otherwise be chargeable

Sampathirao Apparao vs. Income Tax Officer,

The appeals stand dismissed

132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 1961 Act) wherein he admitted that amount lying in the account of Sarup Chand belonged to his family members. The said amount was sale proceeds of a house in Amritsar. The said house was owned by Smt. Kamla Mehta and Smt. Shelly Mehta (both the appellants herein). Sarup Chand

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

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

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 during the Financial Year 2013-14 relevant to Assessment Year 2014- 15 and during the course of Post Search Investigation, the petitioner

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

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, it is submitted that such appointment of Directors cannot be made

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

4. Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj, having its office at District Collectorate, Sahibganj, P.O. and P.S. Sahibganj, District Sahibganj, PIN 816109. 5. District Mining Officer, Sahibganj, having its office at District Collectorate, Sahibganj, P.O. and P.S. Sahibganj, District Sahibganj, PIN 816109. ........... Respondents. ----- With W.P.(C) No. 5076 of 2022 ----- Abhay Shankar Singh, aged about 34 years, son of Gajendra Pratap Singh, resident