The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.B.Satyanarayana AND Others

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

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

B’. No worthwhile material or fact was also brought in record by the learned DR to justify a different finding. Therefore, following the same, under the circumstances we hold that though the AO was justified to reject the book results, estimate of gross profit @ 40% of purchase price and disallowances of expenditure is arbitrary and excessive. We further hold that

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.G.V.Krishna Reddy AND Others

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

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

B’. No worthwhile material or fact was also brought in record by the learned DR to justify a different finding. Therefore, following the same, under the circumstances we hold that though the AO was justified to reject the book results, estimate of gross profit @ 40% of purchase price and disallowances of expenditure is arbitrary and excessive. We further hold that

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

B’. No worthwhile material or fact was also brought in record by the learned DR to justify a different finding. Therefore, following the same, under the circumstances we hold that though the AO was justified to reject the book results, estimate of gross profit @ 40% of purchase price and disallowances of expenditure is arbitrary and excessive. We further hold that

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S G.R.K.PRASAD AND OTHERS

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

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

B’. No worthwhile material or fact was also brought in record by the learned DR to justify a different finding. Therefore, following the same, under the circumstances we hold that though the AO was justified to reject the book results, estimate of gross profit @ 40% of purchase price and disallowances of expenditure is arbitrary and excessive. We further hold that

Commissioner of Income Tax, 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

B’. No worthwhile material or fact was also brought in record by the learned DR to justify a different finding. Therefore, following the same, under the circumstances we hold that though the AO was justified to reject the book results, estimate of gross profit @ 40% of purchase price and disallowances of expenditure is arbitrary and excessive. We further hold that

COMMISSIONER OFINCOEMETAX vs. M/S. V.SATYANARAYANA AND OTHERS

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

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

B’. No worthwhile material or fact was also brought in record by the learned DR to justify a different finding. Therefore, following the same, under the circumstances we hold that though the AO was justified to reject the book results, estimate of gross profit @ 40% of purchase price and disallowances of expenditure is arbitrary and excessive. We further hold that

The Commissioner of Income tax vs. M/s.V.Satyanrayana AND Others

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

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

B’. No worthwhile material or fact was also brought in record by the learned DR to justify a different finding. Therefore, following the same, under the circumstances we hold that though the AO was justified to reject the book results, estimate of gross profit @ 40% of purchase price and disallowances of expenditure is arbitrary and excessive. We further hold that

Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajahmundry. vs. m/s Ganesh Arrack Contractors,

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

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

B’. No worthwhile material or fact was also brought in record by the learned DR to justify a different finding. Therefore, following the same, under the circumstances we hold that though the AO was justified to reject the book results, estimate of gross profit @ 40% of purchase price and disallowances of expenditure is arbitrary and excessive. We further hold that

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s GRK Prasad AND others

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

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

B’. No worthwhile material or fact was also brought in record by the learned DR to justify a different finding. Therefore, following the same, under the circumstances we hold that though the AO was justified to reject the book results, estimate of gross profit @ 40% of purchase price and disallowances of expenditure is arbitrary and excessive. We further hold that

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. m/S.M.Ventakteswara Rao AND Others

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

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

B’. No worthwhile material or fact was also brought in record by the learned DR to justify a different finding. Therefore, following the same, under the circumstances we hold that though the AO was justified to reject the book results, estimate of gross profit @ 40% of purchase price and disallowances of expenditure is arbitrary and excessive. We further hold that

The Commissioner of income tax, vs. M/s.Y.Ramulu and Others

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

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

B’. No worthwhile material or fact was also brought in record by the learned DR to justify a different finding. Therefore, following the same, under the circumstances we hold that though the AO was justified to reject the book results, estimate of gross profit @ 40% of purchase price and disallowances of expenditure is arbitrary and excessive. We further hold that

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

B’. No worthwhile material or fact was also brought in record by the learned DR to justify a different finding. Therefore, following the same, under the circumstances we hold that though the AO was justified to reject the book results, estimate of gross profit @ 40% of purchase price and disallowances of expenditure is arbitrary and excessive. We further hold that

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. SOMA ENTERPRISES LTD

The appeal is disposed off accordingly

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

1) by the Income Tax Officer, Mandya. The case was selected for scrutiny in accordance with the scrutiny guidelines issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Notice under Section 143(2) was issued and served on the assessee on 23.08.2007. In response to the same, the Internal Auditor has appeared and represented the case and produced various documents

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s Indur Green Power Private Limited

In the result, all the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

41. To establish and support or aid in the establishment and support of associations, institutions, funds, trusts and conveniences calculated to benefit employees or ex- employees of the company or the dependants of such persons, and to grant pension and allowances to make payment towards insurance of such persons and generally to provide for superannuation benefits; 42. To procure

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. K. V. Srinivasa Rao

B) of the Indian Evidence Act was not annexed to the call detail records, and no reliance could have been placed upon the call detail records. She relied upon the judgments of Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan & Anr vs State Of M.P, 2010 (2) SCC 748, D. Gopalakrishnan vs Sadanand Naik & Ors, 2005(1) SCC 85 and Malkhan Singh

M/S. SREE TRADING CORPORATION vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

41, Hyderabad. Respondent ! Counsel for Appellant : Ms. I.Maamu Vani ^ Counsel for respondent : Mr. J.V.Prasad HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred 1 1980 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 660 2 (2016) 15 SCC 785 HCJ & NTRJ I.T.T.A.No.205 of 2006 2 THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI I.T.T.A.No.205 of 2006 JUDGMENT

The Prl Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. Institute of Development and Research in Banking Technology

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

41,782/-. It was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) and subsequently, taken up for scrutiny under Section 143(3) of the Act. On November 16, 2011, the Assessing Officer passed his order under Section 143(3) of the Act. 6. Subsequently, the AO4 reopened the assessment for the year

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions0 vs. Kalinga Cultural Trust

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

B without recording finding of its own and omitting to consider and adjudicate the grounds of the revenue in proper perspective? 3. In I.T.A.No.571/2016 and I.T.A.No.580/2016 in addition, to the aforesaid two substantial questions of law, following additional substantial questions of law arise for consideration respectively: 6 I.T.A.No.571/2016: (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances