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

Bench: The Learned

5 of 10 disclose all material facts and therefore, the reassessment notice – which was issued beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year – was barred by limitation. The said objections were rejected by the AO. 15. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 29.12.2017, the Assessee filed an appeal before the learned

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

5 assessee made an additional claim on account of loss on sale of securities to the extent of Rs.8,28,65,052/-. 3. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 30.03.2013 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act determined the income of the assessee at Rs.51,71,70,670/- and made following additions: (a) disallowance

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. 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 by the Assessing Officer. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals

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