THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. M/S QUALITY CARE INDIA LTD

Bench: A.SHANKAR NARAYANA,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

132, as a consequence of which, proceedings were initiated under Section 153A. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) r/w Section 153A. After completion of the assessment, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under Section 147 by issuing a notice under Section 148, on 31.03.2011. 5. The reason for reopening of the assessment was that while initiating proceedings under

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-1 vs. M/s. New River Software System Pvt Ltd.,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowance of interest of `75,47,897/- on unsecured loans was added under Section 68 of the Act and an amount of `1,51,200/- which was expended on the foreign guests was added. 3. Apropos the appeals filed in 2015, a similar reassessment order was passed pursuant to the search proceedings under Section 132

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Adaptec [India] Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

disallowance of interest of `75,47,897/- on unsecured loans was added under Section 68 of the Act and an amount of `1,51,200/- which was expended on the foreign guests was added. 3. Apropos the appeals filed in 2015, a similar reassessment order was passed pursuant to the search proceedings under Section 132

THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI K.C.K.A.GUPTA

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

132(4) of the Act. Subsequently, he has enhanced it to Rs.1,43,21,000/-, which was later scaled down to Rs.1,41,02,000/- for the entire group. The Assessing Officer (AO), in the block assessment proceedings for the block period 01-04-1987 to 24-10-1997, accepted the returns filed by the assessee. Subsequently, the internal Audit

Commissioner of Income Tax-V, vs. Sri S.Venkat Reddy, (PAN ALAPS4009A)

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who by an order dated 03.07.2006 partly allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee. The assessee as well as the revenue approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by filing appeals. The Tribunal, 5 by an order dated 17.05.2013 partly allowed

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

132 of the Act was conducted in Jain Group of cases on 18.3.2008 and on subsequent dates the respondent/assessee, one of the assessee of this Group. The residential premises of the karta of the assessee was also subjected to search and seizure operation. The other intricate factual details may not be required to be considered and it will suffice

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. BHAVANASI ANJANEYULU

Appeals are allowed in part

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

disallowance of labour charges claimed on the basis of inadequate supporting documents ignoring the fact that the supporting documents suffered from various discrepancies?” 5. The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of stevedoring, clearing, forwarding and other services relating to the New Mangalore Port Trust (NMPT). A search was conducted under section 132

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. M/S.TRANSPORT CORPORATION OF INDIA

In the result, we set aside the assessment orders, except to

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, in the premises of the assessee on 6.1.2009. After completing all procedural formalities, assessments for the years 2003-04 to 2009-10 were reopened. However, these appeals are concerning the assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10 only. Accordingly, the assessments were completed by Annexure A orders where, rejecting the books of accounts

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Pact Securities AND Financial Services Ltd

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), The Assessees Had Called In Question The Orders Of Assessing Officer (For Short ‘The A.O.’), Who, While Completing The Assessment For The Relevant Assessment Years Disallowed The Deduction Of The “Lease Equalization” Charges From The Lease Rental Income. The Disallowed Amounts By The Cit (Appeals) In These Appeals Are Of Rs.48,56,224/-, Rs,44,18,245/- & Rs.13,16,123/-.

132 & 136 of 2004 ORAL JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Dilip B.Bhosale) The first four appeals, under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), are preferred by the Revenue. Out of which, first two appeals are against the orders dated 30-07-2002 and 29-11-2002 in I.T.A.Nos.142/HYD/2002 and 141/HYD/2002 respectively

The Commissioner of Income tax vs. M/s. Nirmala Constructions

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Cit(A) After The Amendment U/S. 80P(2)(A)(Iii) Of The Act? Iv) Whether, In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The

disallowance. He further submits that the interest income has been earned from short-term deposits with Co-operative Banks and Co-operative Societies and is fully exempted u/s 80P(2)(d). The CTT(A), in the subsequent assessment year, i.e., assessment year 1993-94, has allowed the same. The reliance was also placed upon the judgement of Hon'ble Punjab

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.K.Seetha Ramaiah AND Others

The appeal stands dismissed

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

disallowed by the A.O. and confirmed by CIT(A) and whether the finding in respect of the above additions is perverse? 3. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT was right and justified in holding that Rs. 16 Lac had flown back from unexplained lease payments and whether the finding in respect of the above