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

section 271(1)(c) by Finance Act. 2002, w.e.f. 1st April 2003, penalty for concealment of income could not be levied in the absence of any positive income. The head note of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced herein below. “Penalty under s. (1) (c)- concealment assessment at loss provisions of s. 271 (1(c) (iii) prior to amendment by Finance

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

Andhra PRadesh Pradesh Fibres Limited vs. Assistant commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the order passed by the

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

disallowed 100% depreciation on pollution control equipments amounting to Rs.4,93,00,000/-. The assessing officer also taxed the notional income on the amount of loan advanced to Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board. The said order was subject matter of challenge before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by an order dated 30.08.2010 held

The Commissioner of Income Tax(Central) vs. M/s.Madhu Enterprises

Bench: The Learned

1) of the act, the said section would not apply if the assessee owned more than one residential house. Clause (i) of the proviso to Section 54F of the Act is extracted below: “Section 54F. Capital gain on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged in case of investment in residential house. *** *** *** Provided that nothing contained in this

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

1) of the I.T.Act by ignoring the fact that such expenditure is covered u/s 35D of the I.T.Act ? 4. The first substantial question of law in both the above mentioned appeals has already been concluded by this Court on 06.08.2008 against the revenue in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deputy Commissioner of Income

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1)(IV) of the Act and 45(3) of the Act? iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the disallowance made in respect of long term capital asset even when the land in question was not an agricultural land and same is rightly treated as capital

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

1. The assessee in this appeal under Section 268 of the Income Tax Act urges that two questions of law arises for consideration. The first, it is submitted, pertains to the correctness of the ITAT directions to add Rs.22 lakhs towards alleged bogus freight and forwarding expenditure by an estimating exercise. The second question of law urged is that