Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Sattenapalli

In the result, the order of the income tax appellate tribunal

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

274 (SC), ‘CIT VS. YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD’, 341 ITR 385 (KARNATAKA), ‘CIT VS. GALAXY SURFACANTS LTD’, 343 ITR 108 (BOMBAY), ‘MINDTREE CONSULTING (P) LTD VS. ACIT’, 102 TTJ 691 (BANGALORE), ‘HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD. VS. DCIT’, 325 ITR 102 (BOMBAY), ‘CIT VS. BALCK AND VEATCH CONSULTING (P) LTD’, 348 ITR 72 (BOMBAY), ‘CIT VS. SHANTIVIJAY JEWELS LTD’, 374 ITR 520 (BOMBAY

M/s. Kamma Sangaham, vs. The Director of Income -Tax (Exemptions),

Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 1961’]. 4. In appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the order passed by the assessing officer, which was also affirmed by the Tribunal in appeal filed by the assessee. The assessee carried the matter to this Court in ITA No.271 of 2005, which was disposed

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

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Hyderabad House Pvt Ltd.,

capitalizing it with the multiplier of 14 on the basis of age of the claimant mother (44 years old) in view of dicta in Amrit Bhanu Shali & Ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 11 SCC 738. 14. The claimants by their appeal (MAC appeal No. 881/2015) submit that the non-pecuniary heads of damages have not been property taken

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