Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Ch.Veeraju AND co.

penalty so imposed. The assessing officer disallowed the claim for deduction of the amount paid towards penalty, while the first

Commissioner of Income Tax - VI vs. M/s. S.P. Steels

penalty so imposed. The assessing officer disallowed the claim for deduction of the amount paid towards penalty, while the first

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

The appeal stands dismissed

disallowed being bogus and without any justification. This works out to Rs.6,45,000/-. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) r.w 274 of the Income

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

penalty order when the same was properly disallowed by the Assessing Officer and after verifying the relevant records. Thus, a finding

CHENNAKESAVA PHARMACEUTICALS VIJAYAWADA vs. THE COMI.OF INCOMETAX VIJ.

In the result, all the appeals are allowed setting aside the common

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

penalty can be levied under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act. In the cases on hand, the return of income had been accepted on the ground that the assessee had made full disclosure of its income. For the assessment year 1984-85, certain expenditure claimed is disallowed

THE PRINCIPAL COMMR OF INCOME TAX-II vs. L.G.TRINADHA RAO

The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

disallowed, it would amount to concealment of income liable to penalty under section 271[1][c] of the Act. It is submitted

Commissioner of Income Tax-III, vs. M/s Sree Rayalaseema Green Energy Limited,

disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. Since I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, penalty

Commissioner of Income Tax-2, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

disallowed on pro-rata basis. Thus addition to the tune of Rs.13,61,450/- is being made to the taxable income of the assessee. Penalty

COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETA VIZ vs. M/S RAJAM EXTRACTIONS PVT

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

penalty, sales tax etc., was payable by the assessee/appellant and was to be included as landed cost of imported material. The Revenue for the relevant years had disallowed

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultral Market Committee,

Appeal is dismissed

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

disallowed under PRERNA JOSHI 2025.01.29 13:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CEA-60-2011 (O&M) 3 Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A of the Act, 1944. Further, penalty

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.

penalty proceedings in accordance with 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

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Nara Constructions,

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

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) states that where in respect of any facts material to computation of total income of an assessee, the assessee offers no explanation or where an assessee offers an explanation, which he is ITA No. 625/2017+connected Page 3 of 16 not able

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri. B. Venkatesam,

The appeal stands disposed of with no order as to

disallowance of `1,64,87,375 - disputed additional customs duty claimed by the assessee as a part of the landed cost of goods. 8. The facts, relevant to the question of deduction on account of additional customs duty, briefly stated are as follows: The appellant is, interalia, engaged in manufacturing and trading of products like de-oiled meals, industrial hard

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri Byru Venkateswarlu

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

penalty proceedings. The AO had not brought on record any evidence to show that the purchases were bogus.” 5. It has further been contended that the Tribunal while considering the case in para 3 has observed as under: “After hearing both the parties and on perusal of material available on record, it (4 of 10) [ITA-341/2005] appears that

The commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.M.Narayana Choudary and Others

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

disallowing the expenditure claimed to the extent of 50%. S ri Y.Ratnakar and Sri A.V.Krishna Koundinya made submissions for the assesses. They would contend that estimation of 40% of the purchase price as gross profit is unreasonable, arbitrary and without any basis. The Tribunal was, therefore, correct in estimating the sales turnover at eight (8) times of the purchase price

COMMR.OF I.T. RKAJAHMUNDRY vs. T.RAMI REDDY AND ORS

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

disallowing the expenditure claimed to the extent of 50%. S ri Y.Ratnakar and Sri A.V.Krishna Koundinya made submissions for the assesses. They would contend that estimation of 40% of the purchase price as gross profit is unreasonable, arbitrary and without any basis. The Tribunal was, therefore, correct in estimating the sales turnover at eight (8) times of the purchase price

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ms. B.krishna Murthy AND Others

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

disallowing the expenditure claimed to the extent of 50%. S ri Y.Ratnakar and Sri A.V.Krishna Koundinya made submissions for the assesses. They would contend that estimation of 40% of the purchase price as gross profit is unreasonable, arbitrary and without any basis. The Tribunal was, therefore, correct in estimating the sales turnover at eight (8) times of the purchase price

COMMISSISONER OF I.T. RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/S.Y RAMAKRISHNA AND OTHERS

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

disallowing the expenditure claimed to the extent of 50%. S ri Y.Ratnakar and Sri A.V.Krishna Koundinya made submissions for the assesses. They would contend that estimation of 40% of the purchase price as gross profit is unreasonable, arbitrary and without any basis. The Tribunal was, therefore, correct in estimating the sales turnover at eight (8) times of the purchase price