Sri Natakari Gopal vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and 2 Others

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 3Rd January, 2023. Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mita, Adv. ..For Appellant Mr. Pranit Bag , Adv. Mr. A. K. Mishra, Adv. Mr. Debdatta Saha, Adv. …For Respondent Re: Ga/1/2022 The Court:- Heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, Learned Advocate For The Appellant & Mr. Pranit Bag, Learned Advocate For The Respondent. There Is A Delay Of 1126 Days In Filing The Appeal. Though The Reasons Given In The Affidavit Are Not Convincing The Issues Involved In The Appeal Had Been Decided By This Court In Earlier Matters, This Court Exercises Discretion & Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal. Accordingly, The Application Is Allowed.

Capital Gains of Rs.1,12,13,010/- and also claim bogus exemption u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on such amount of LTCG claimed, thereby giving rise to the vice of flaw in the decision making processes ? We have heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Pranit Kumar Bag, learned Counsel

The Commissioner of Income Tax - IV vs. Ch. Mohan Rao,

capital gains tax on transfer of his membership card of the Hyderabad Stock Exchange to a Company? It appears that the learned Tribunal while deciding the entire matter came to the fact finding that notice under Section 148

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.Globe Organics Ltd

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: V.ESWARAIAH,K.G.SHANKAR

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been filed against the order dated 07.04.2006 (Annexure A-3) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, whereby appeal filed by the revenue-respondent against the order dated 22.03.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chandigarh, has been partly accepted. Brief facts of the case are that

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Margadarshi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd.,

The appeal is dismissed

capitalized and depreciation was ordered to be charged on it. Rs.7650/- were added to the income of the assessee on account of telephone expenses, as the assessee admitted the expenditure incurred on account of telephones installed at residences. Further addition of Rs.2,00,000/- was made on account of sale of rice, as no stock was maintained by the assessee

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Omega Shelters Pvt Ltd

In the result, we do not find any merit in

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2007-08. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 14.08.2013 on the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether

The Commissioner of Income Tax -III vs. Sri T.C. Reddy

The appeal stands dismissed

capital of the company. This fact was brought to the notice of the assessee vide order sheet entry dated 29.12.2009. No satisfactory reply has been filed. It is therefore, disallowed from the revenue expenses claimed by the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s271(1)(c) r.w 274 of the Income-tax Act for concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars are initiated separately

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

148 of the Act calling upon the Assessee to file its return of income for the AY 2003-04. In response to the aforesaid notice, the Assessee filed its return of income on 16th May, 2006 disclosing its taxable income as ‗Nil‘. Thereafter, the AO issued notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. In response to the aforesaid notices

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

gain as General Manager (HR&A) "Bidyut Unnayan Bhaban", Plot No. 3/C, LA Block, Sector-III, P.O. - Salt Lake City, P.S.- Bidhannagar, District- Kolkata, West Bengal, PIN – 700106 ..........Petitioner. -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, having its office at Yojna Bhawan, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand