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

The appeal stands dismissed

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

Income Tax Appeal No.106/2003 CIT, Jaipur Vs. M/s. Bhatnagar Hotels & Resorts DATE OF ORDER ::: 03.01.2017 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Mr. Anuroop Singhi, for the appellant. Mr. Prakul Khurana for Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar, for the respondent. 1. By way of this appeal, the department has assailed the judgment and order

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s Polisetty Somasundaram,

income from undisclosed sources. (5) Addition of Rs.60,000/- on account of interest charged on investment in shares. (6) The assessee has diverted its borrowed funds to non- interest bearing advances to the tune of Rs.1,58,86,441/-. As such interest of Rs.19,06,373/- worked out @12% on interest free advances was disallowed

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s.Mahaveer Enterprises [I] Ltd

undisclosed income on the ground that no evidence of income and regular returns were filed for the Block Period Year wise, such conclusion is legally sustainable? (ii) Whether, the Tribunal was justified in restricting the claim of assets as on 31.03.1986 at Rs.2,50,000/- as against Rs.4,50,000/- as confirmed by the CIT(A) on the basis that

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

undisclosed income. Thus, the assessee having not disclosed the income in the return of income filed under section 139[1] but has shown the same in the return in response to the notice under section 153C cannot be said to be voluntary. With regard to the alleged defect in the notice issued under section 274 of the Act, either

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri Byru Venkateswarlu

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

income from undisclosed sources.” 4. Counsel for the appellant has further contended that the CIT(A) while considered the case of the assessee has observed as under: “As regards the unproven purchases and sales with R.S. Corporation and Sunrise Jewellers, it was stated that these were existing concerns and the AO had not taken into consideration the fact that Shri

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

undisclosed income for the period 1.4.1990 to 14.2.2001. Apparently, during the course of the proceedings having regard to the complexity of accounts, special audit under Section 142 (2) (A) of the Income Tax Act were also ordered. Though, this Court is not directly concern with details of those facts, yet to the extent it is relevant is worth noticing that

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Kaveri Bar AND Restaurant,

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

disallowing lesser amount under Section 36(i)(iii) of the Income Tax Act in the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessing officer in his recorded reasons also could not make out a case that the basis of reopening the assessment in question is some new material which came into his possession subsequently

COMMR OF INCOME TAX AP-I HYD vs. M/S.LANCO CONSTRUCTIONS LTD. HYD

The Appeal is dismissed

undisclosed income in the course of block assessment under Section 158 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and that while disallowance

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, it will not be possible for us to adjudicate this ground. Therefore, we set aside the issue of interest of Rs.7,54,797/- back to the file of assessing officer to decide the same afresh, considering our conclusion on applicability of sec. 68, commencement of business in 2007- 08, after giving the assessee reasonable opportunity of being

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

The appeals are dismissed

disallowance of interest, it will not be possible for us to adjudicate this ground. Therefore, we set aside the issue of interest of Rs.7,54,797/- back to the file of assessing officer to decide the same afresh, considering our conclusion on applicability of sec. 68, commencement of business in 2007- 08, after giving the assessee reasonable opportunity of being

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

undisclosed investment and disallowed depreciation I.T.Appeal No.133/14 & con.cases. -2- claimed. 2. The appeals filed before the Commissioner of Income- tax were

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

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

disallowed an amount of Rs.11,71,893.00 shown by the appellant as receipts from trade creditors. Consequently taxable income of the appellant was assessed at Rs.15,86,408.00. 6. Appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Hyderabad (briefly referred to hereinafter as ‘CIT(A)’). By the appellate order dated 06.08.2004, CIT(A) upheld the order

The Pr. Commissioner of Income vs. Shri. Vishnu Mohan Reddy Chintapally

Appeal is disposed of

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

income of the Firm (M/s Chemester Food Industry) for AY 2014-15 at ₹34,72,46,700/- by making an addition of ₹4,37,046/- on account of disallowance of expenditure for personal use. 12. The learned PCIT exercising its powers under Section 263 of the Act, issued a show cause notice dated 25.02.2019 calling upon CFIPL to show cause

Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. M/S Sri Ramanjaneya Poultry Farm Pvt., Ltd.,

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

undisclosed income which he was even prepared to surrender to tax. It was thereafter in the course of further enquiry that he came up with a version that the gold ornaments in question belonged to his step-mother who bequeathed the same for the benefit of children of the CS(OS) No.713/2006 Page 8 of 14 plaintiff and other children

M/s. Chirec Education Society, vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax (E),

In the result, the appeal [ITA/63/2011]

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

disallowance of Rs. 8,86,381/- out of expenditure on repairs and maintenance made upon comparison of expenditure under the head for the preceding year and the turnover figures for the two years without identifying any defect in the books of accounts, bills and vouchers produced in support of the expenditure and its purported findings in that regard are arbitrary