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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowing the assessment made by the Assessing Authority to tax amount of Rs.1,12,745/- under the head “Income of other sources”. Even when the Assessing Authority rightly observed that the assessee had not furnished any proof with regard to foreign tour undertaken by the assessee during the year except that the amount was spent by M/s Classic Coffee

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Dr. T.Ravi Kumar,

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 10Th April, 2024. Appearance: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjay Bhowmick, Advocate Ms. Swapna Das, Advocate … For The Appellant. Ms. Smita Das De, Advocate … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Sanjay Bhowmick, Learned Counsel For The Appellant/Assessee & Ms. Smita Das De, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Respondent. 2. The Assessment Years Involved In The Present Appeal Are Assessment Year 1999-2000 & Assessment Year 2000-01. By Order Dated 16.08.2012, This Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :-

250/- as deductible expenditure. Thus, the income was assessed as loss of Rs.1,38,92,820/-. The carrying forward of losses was not disputed. 6. Aggrieved with the aforesaid two assessment orders for the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-01, the appellant assessee filed two separate appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – IX, Mumbai, 6 which both

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

250 - were subject to search and ITA 132/2011 Page 2 seizure proceedings. Subsequently, the appellant and the other concerns which were subject to the search were issued with notice on 30.08.2001 under Section 158 (BC) requiring the furnishing of return of income including undisclosed income for the period 1.4.1990 to 14.2.2001. Apparently, during the course of the proceedings having regard

The Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. M/S Heritage Foods India Limited,

250/- relating to the debenture issue , 10% amounting to Rs.7,88,825/- was allowed under the provisions of section 35D of the Act and the balance amount of Rs.70,99,425/- was disallowed

The Director of Income Tax, (Exemptions) vs. Royal Education Society

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

250 ITR 193 (SC), and 'ACIT VS. 9 RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS P. LTD.', (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC). 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that if an assessee discovers any omission or any wrong statement, he may furnish a revised return under Section 139(5) of the Act within the time limit prescribed therein

Commissioenr of Income Tax vs. Dr. T. Ravi Kumar

250, the High Court has held that recording of satisfaction by AO is sine quo non for the purpose of initiating penalty under Section 271(1) (c). From the reading of the assessment order it is not clear that whether the AO was satisfied even prima facie that this claim is suitable for initiating penalty proceedings. The same, therefore, cannot