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

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

1) of the Income Tax Act and submits that this section provides for penalty and prosecution is prescribed therein. He further submits that section 277 of the Income Tax Act speaks of false statement filed by any assessee. He further submits that section 278(E) of the Act speaks of culpable state of mind. He further submits that there

PRL COMMR OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. K RAVINDER REDDY, HYDERABAD

In the result, this Cr.M.P

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

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 154 of the Act as per the directions of the Tribunal. As already noticed, the subject- matter of the complaint before this Court is concealment of income arrived at on the basis

Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajahmundry vs. M/s. Kakinada Coop. Town Bank LTd., Kakinada

Bench: The Court Is: “Whether, The Shares Invested Through A Portfolio Management

1. This is an appeal filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT”) which upheld the action of the Revenue in treating the profit made by the appellant on sale of equity shares under the Portfolio-Management Schemes (“PMS”) as business income and not as capital gains, as claimed by the appellant. The question of law that

INCOME TAX BANGALORE vs. SHALINI BHUPAL

Appeal is dismissed

capital of not less than five hundred thousand rupees; (iii) the hotel is for the time being approved for the purposes of this sub-section by the Central Government; (iv) the business of the hotel starts functioning after the 31st day of March, 1981, but before the 1st day of April [1991]. [(4A) This section applies to the business

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟) of which 1 is by the Assessee and 10 are by the Revenue. Apart from the facts being similar, the questions of law too are common to many of the appeals. They are accordingly disposed of by this common judgment. Background facts 2. The Assessee is engaged to the business

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟) of which 1 is by the Assessee and 10 are by the Revenue. Apart from the facts being similar, the questions of law too are common to many of the appeals. They are accordingly disposed of by this common judgment. Background facts 2. The Assessee is engaged to the business

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Sri Anil Harnathka

Bench: The Tribunal & The Tribunal On The Ground Of The Assessee'S Mother Having Filed A Return Conceding Capital Gains, Set Aside The Addition Of Rs.60 Lakhs As Against The Assessee. By Annexure-A, The Assessment Of The Assessee Was Completed Taking As Undisclosed Income, Various Credits In The Bank Account Between 08.08.2005 & 23.11.2005. Out Of The Total Amount Of Rs.98,18,244/-, Rs.60,00,000/- According To The Assessee Represented The Unaccounted Receipt On The Sale Of The Property By His Mother. The Property Is Said To Have Actually Fetched Rs.74,00,000/- & The Mother, The Owner Of

capital gains tax at the hands of the mother. The fact remains that the amounts were credited to the account of the assessee and it remained as undisclosed income insofar as the assessee having returned only Rs.1,17,830/- in the subject assessment year. I.T.A.No.24 of 2014 - 4 - 4. The learned Counsel for the assessee would in fact point

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 II vs. P. Govinda Rao

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Us. For Convenience We Are Noticing The Facts Of Appeal Bearing D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.67/2007, Rajasthan Art Emporium V. Dcit, Circle, Jodhpur.

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. An appeal giving challenge to the order passed by the Assessing Officer also came to be disposed of under an order dated 9.4.1999 by holding as under:- “14. I have considered the submissions very carefully in this regard. I have also seen the reasoning given by the AO for disallowing intt. amounting

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

PR COMMR OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. K RAVINDER REDDY, HYDERABAD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

section. Nonetheless, as an overall matter, GE is correct that in some instances, ITAT‟s characterization of certain conversations appears to overstate the importance of the activities in India (for e.g. e- mail chain on Reliance-GT Exhaust Height; e-mail chain on confirmation of RIL PO No. DG8/3389741). Nevertheless, in many other instances, ITAT‟s decision is sound

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Shri Raaj Kumar Jain

Section 27 begins with a proviso and states that when any fact is deposed to as discovered, in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved, 49 whether it amounts to a confession