Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

unexplained cash credit - added back by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT to the tune of Rs.6,84,22,895/-. 4. It is urged that so far as the addition of Rs.22 lakhs goes, the Assessing Officer and the higher authorities fell into error in relying solely on the testimony and deposition of one Vineet Bhargava who stated

The Commissioner of Income Tax -III vs. Sri T.C. Reddy

The appeal stands dismissed

unexplained credits and interest thereon for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80, respectively.” 4.4 He also relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in Vijay Kumar Talwar vs. CIT (2011) 330 ITR 1 (SC) wherein Supreme Court held as under:- “21. A finding of fact may give rise to a substantial question of law, inter alia

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

credit worthiness of the foreign investor, given the circumstances of the case?; and 2. Are the findings of the Tribunal on this score perverse on the face of the record?” 4. The assessee company is a subsidiary of M/s Russian Technology Centre Holding Ltd. (for short ‘RTCHL’), based in Tortola BVI, which had received various amounts towards share capital

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

The appeals are dismissed

credit worthiness of the foreign investor, given the circumstances of the case?; and 2. Are the findings of the Tribunal on this score perverse on the face of the record?” 4. The assessee company is a subsidiary of M/s Russian Technology Centre Holding Ltd. (for short ‘RTCHL’), based in Tortola BVI, which had received various amounts towards share capital