M/S UNICORN AGRO TECH LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD. vs. THE ASST. COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the

Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 143(3) of the Act by order dated December 31, 2007 accepted the long term capital gains which arose

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s Pokarna Limited

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

3. The assessee Company filed its return of income for assessment year 2005-06 on 31.10.2005 declaring a total income of Rs. NIL and paid taxes under Section 115JB of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (for short, hereinafter referred to as `the Act’). The same was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act on 28.08.2006. The case was selected

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

143(2) and assessment completed making an addition of Rs.1,87,00,000/- as being concealed income under 'short-term capital gain'. The assessee, which was a partnership firm and later registered as a Company, owns 30.7 cents of land in a prime location at Ernakulam. While the assessee was a firm, it started construction of a building and from

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

Bench: The Learned

143(3) of the Act restricting the deduction under Section 54F to ₹30 crores, as against ₹90 crores claimed by the Assessee. 7. The Assessee had deposited the consideration in the capital gains

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Srimantha Granites

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

3. Assessees filed returns of income for A.Y.1 2008-09 under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) and revised returns excluding capital gains derived from the sale of their lands. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143

The Commissioner of Income-tax-I, vs. Derco Cooling Coils Ltd,

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

3. Assessees filed returns of income for A.Y.1 2008-09 under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) and revised returns excluding capital gains derived from the sale of their lands. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143

The Commissioner of Income Tax- I vs. Harmahendar Singh Bagga

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

3. Assessees filed returns of income for A.Y.1 2008-09 under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) and revised returns excluding capital gains derived from the sale of their lands. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143

V.C. NANNAPANENI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

Section 143(3) of the Act on 28.3.2002 determining the total income of Rs.2,26,94,970/- by including a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/- received by the appellant from M/s. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as “SPIL”) under the head “income from other sources” treating the same as revenue receipt and subjecting the same

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s Matrix Power Pvt Ltd.,

143(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) during the assessment proceedings, noticed that: (i) The Assessee had a hundred per-cent export oriented undertaking (100% EOU) at Plot No.A-280 to 283, RIICO Industrial Area, Chopanki, Distt. Alwar (Rajasthan); was registered as EOU in Noida Special Economic Zone and eligible for deduction under Section 10B of the Act. This

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), vs. M/s Country Club Inda Limited

143(3)/147 of the Act. Assessment Order dated 18th December, 2006 14. The AO observed that the Assessee had not booked any establishment cost, depreciation or any other indirect costs in its accounts. Further, the Assessee had also not showed any source of funds. The AO noted that the equipment stated to have been supplied by the Assessee

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

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

143(3) r/w 144C applied Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act to tax the income of the assessee as royalty. 6. The assessees in the present cases both derive income from the “lease of transponders” of their respective satellites. This lease is for the object of relaying signals of their customers; both resident and non-resident TV channels that

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions0 vs. Kalinga Cultural Trust

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

143(3) of the Act based on the survey 8 and other enquiries, the Assessing Officer disallowed the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 10B of the Act. 5. The Assessing Officer inter alia held that assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 10B of the Act only after verification and the contention of the assessee that old machinery

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5 vs. M/s. VBC Industries Limited

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

143(3) of the Act based on the survey 8 and other enquiries, the Assessing Officer disallowed the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 10B of the Act. 5. The Assessing Officer inter alia held that assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 10B of the Act only after verification and the contention of the assessee that old machinery

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I vs. A.V. V. VARAPRASAD

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

capital gains under Sections 54EC and 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961,(for short ‘the Act’). The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. A notice under Section 143 (2), was accordingly issued. Upon considering the details furnished by the authorised representative of the assessee, the Assessing Officer (AO) has completed the assessment under Section 143 (3

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

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

143(3) more so when the assessing officer cancelled the penalty levied. 26. In our view, once the finding of concealment and subsequent levy of penalties under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been struck down by the Tribunal, the assessing officer has no other alternative except to correct his order under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S K.VENKATESWARA RAO

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

143(3) after making various additions and disallowances. Being aggrieved by the additions and disallowances made by the Assessing Officer, the apepllant preferred first appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals) who granted partial relief to the appellant. 2.1 Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Page 2 of 14 O/TAXAP/186/2003 JUDGMENT CIT(A) the appellant as well

Commissioner of Incoem Tax- 2, vs. M/s. Erythor Pharma Pvt. Ltd.,

In the result, the impugned order dated

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

capital gains in the returns filed over a period of years, subsequently can they refuse to accept the said valuation as the basis, for the subsequent years? 3 3. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that the appellant had filed return of income on 04.01.2007 which was processed under Section 143

The Commissioner of Income tax vs. M/s. ragamayee bAr AND Restaurant,

The appeals stand dismissed

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

3. Whether case in question should have been dealt with in accordance with the requirement of Section 132B ibid and if it was not dealt with, by not taking note of said provision, whether a case for remand id made out for examining the question keeping in view the requirement of section 132B ibid”. 3.2 Appeal No. 216/2010 admitted