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

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

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

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

271(1)(c) were to be initiated and third, that the claim for rebate under Section 88E, as an alternative, was to fail since no evidence of the Securities Transaction Tax paid was furnished. It was reasoned that the purpose of a portfolio manager was to optimize returns of the investor. Since the motive of the transactions was the earning

INCOME TAX BANGALORE vs. SHALINI BHUPAL

Appeal is dismissed

b) of the Explanation below sub-section (8) of section 80HHA. (3) This section applies to any ship, where all the following conditions are fulfilled, namely :— (i) it is owned by an Indian company and is wholly used for the purposes of the business carried on by it; (ii) it was not, previous to the date of its acquisition

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

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

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

b) and (c) in the impugned order enforcing the APLs' decision by majority and recognizing the power of the Joint (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 83 of 300 APLs to act by majority is contrary to law and to the order of appointment of the APLs. 23. It is submitted

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

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