The Commissioner of Income Tax III, vs. M/s. Swagath Seeds Private Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

cash deficit amount? viii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside disallowance made on account of amounts deposited

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

deposit, advance rent etc. Further the payments had been made through account payee checks purely on commercial consideration. 56. The AO, however, did not agree and disallowed Rs.41,84,947 as being in excess and unreasonable and valued back for the income of Assessee. In appeal, the CIT(A) reversed the AO on the ground that

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

deposit, advance rent etc. Further the payments had been made through account payee checks purely on commercial consideration. 56. The AO, however, did not agree and disallowed Rs.41,84,947 as being in excess and unreasonable and valued back for the income of Assessee. In appeal, the CIT(A) reversed the AO on the ground that

The Director of Income Tax-(Exemptions), vs. Vasavi Academy of Education

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

deposits in different insurance policies to the tune of Rs.63,366/-, a refrigerator valued at Rs.4,000/-, a television worth of Rs.10,000/- and gold ornaments to the value of Rs.75,000/-. This petitioner is an income tax assessee and the income tax returns submitted by her have been obtained. It is stated that she had disclosed her income

The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Vaishnavi Educational Society

In the result, this Cross Objection is allowed and the suit is

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

cash, but without leading any proof on it. As far as DW3 - Sri.Sajeed is concerned, his deposition would, in fact, only prove that he had no source whatsoever. In Exhibit B34 Sale Deed, he is described as a farmer, though in his testimony as DW3, he claims to be a 'Freelance Model Maker' (sic). He claimed to be a graduate

Commissioner of Income Tax- IT and TP vs. M/s. Louis Berger International Inc

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak Date : 21St July, 2022. Appearance :- Mr. Sumit Ghosh, Adv. ….For Appellant. Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. ….For Respondent

cash payment exceeding Rs.20,000/-. Once again, the explanation offered by the assessee was found to be not convincing and a sum of 4 Rs.7,61,511/- being 20% of such payment of Rs.38,07,557/- was disallowed under Section 40A(3) of the Act. The next issue which was taken up by the assessing officer was with regard

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/s. The A.P.Vardhaman(Mahila)Cooperative Urban

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

deposits stood at Rs.7,02,69,336/-. This was claimed as deduction being interest from the business of banking. Out of this, an amount of Rs.6,95,66,643/- was disallowed by the assessing officer on the ground that the assessee did not obtain prior approval in respect of investments against statutory reserves as required under Section

Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. The Agrasen Coop. Urban Bank Ltd.,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

deposits stood at Rs.7,02,69,336/-. This was claimed as deduction being interest from the business of banking. Out of this, an amount of Rs.6,95,66,643/- was disallowed by the assessing officer on the ground that the assessee did not obtain prior approval in respect of investments against statutory reserves as required under Section

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. The Andhra Bank Employees Co.Operative Bank Limited

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

deposits stood at Rs.7,02,69,336/-. This was claimed as deduction being interest from the business of banking. Out of this, an amount of Rs.6,95,66,643/- was disallowed by the assessing officer on the ground that the assessee did not obtain prior approval in respect of investments against statutory reserves as required under Section

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S The A.P.Mahesh Coop. Urban Bank Ltd,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

deposits stood at Rs.7,02,69,336/-. This was claimed as deduction being interest from the business of banking. Out of this, an amount of Rs.6,95,66,643/- was disallowed by the assessing officer on the ground that the assessee did not obtain prior approval in respect of investments against statutory reserves as required under Section

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

cash credit - added back by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT to the tune of Rs.6,84,22,895/-. 4. It is urged that so far as the addition of Rs.22 lakhs goes, the Assessing Officer and the higher authorities fell into error in relying solely on the testimony and deposition of one Vineet Bhargava who stated that

Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. M/S Sri Ramanjaneya Poultry Farm Pvt., Ltd.,

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

cash amounting to Rs.49,86,500.00 and silver bars numbering 222 were seized. The assessee got the silver bars released from the department, as per the directions of the Hon’ble High Court, after depositing 4,39,91,900.00 with the department. The Hon’ble Settlement Commission vide its order dated 7.7.03 U/s 245D(4) of the Income

M/S.VISWARUPA BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS(P)LTD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: This Court As Arising From The Impugned Order Of The Itat Read As Under:

cash balance with the two of them worked out Rs.10,48,231/-. Since this was not disclosed before IT authorities, Section 69A of the IT Act was invoked only as regards this amount and the disallowance was also restricted to the said amount. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the Department and having carefully examined the orders

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

deposited and from which the advance was made to Chohal Investments Ltd. These details are available at assessee's paper book page 334. The assessee has disclosed profit arising from sale of shares of Ballarpur Industries Ltd. for AY 1993-94 and these are included in Balance Sheet for the year ending 31.03.1993. These details are enclosed at assessee

The Commisioner of Income TAx-1 vs. Divya Shakti Granites Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

deposition of PW.1. We hasten to add that the second Agreement at Ex.P4 is admitted in the pleadings of the parties and in their evidence as well. There is no dispute that all these Exhibits relate to suit property only. The signatures appearing on Ex.P2, Ex.P3 & Ex.P5 are specifically admitted by DW.1 who is none other than the husband

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s Indur Green Power Private Limited

In the result, all the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

cash or in kind; and contribution relating to organizations/product link sponsorships for any of the activities of the Company. 10. To institute and establish scholarships, grants, awards and prizes to encourage the study of the art and science of Environment Management or to recognize high standard of performance and excellence in the field of Management. 11. To sponsor, co-ordinate