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

disallowed depreciation I.T.Appeal No.133/14 & con.cases. -2- claimed. 2. The appeals filed before the Commissioner of Income- tax were disposed of deleting addition of undisclosed investment and depreciation claimed by the assessee was also allowed. In all other respects, the assessment orders were confirmed. 3. The Revenue and the assessee filed appeals challenging the orders passed by the first appellate authority

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

unexplained share application money and the same was added to the declared total income. (3) Addition of Rs.1,45,57,286/- was made as the assessee failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness of the parties from whom the alleged loans were declared. (4) No evidence was furnished to prove the genuineness of advances of Rs.10,66,96,566/- from customers

M/S.VISWARUPA BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS(P)LTD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: This Court As Arising From The Impugned Order Of The Itat Read As Under:

unexplained deposit in Bank out of sale of share purchased in earlier years. (iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in deleting addition of Rs.30,00,194/- towards alleged share of transaction of Smt. Bhagabati Devi Banka.” 3. The background facts are that Sri Ram Ratan Banka is the owner of five petrol

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri Byru Venkateswarlu

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

investment in the alleged unproved purchases represented assessee’s own income from undisclosed sources. Such purchases amount of Rs.1,06,717/- represents assessee’s 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

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

The appeal stands dismissed

investment has been shown in the name of M/s Vaishnavi Home Entertainemtn P Ltd, Tuticorin Traxim P Ltd and Alishan Estate, & Wrack Electronics P Ltd, New Delhi. The names of these companies do not appear in the list of persons from whom advance have been received for booking of plot. Rather these companies have introduced share application money/share capital/unsecured lions

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

unexplained. Thereafter, in his appeals against the aforesaid additions, as well as in respect of AY 2007-08, the assessee produced the following additional documents under Section 46 of the IT Rules:- “(i) Attested copy of Certificate of Incorporation of M/s Russian Technology Centre Holding Ltd. (ii) Attested copy of Certificate of Incumbency of M/s Russian Technology Centre Holding

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

The appeals are dismissed

unexplained. Thereafter, in his appeals against the aforesaid additions, as well as in respect of AY 2007-08, the assessee produced the following additional documents under Section 46 of the IT Rules:- “(i) Attested copy of Certificate of Incorporation of M/s Russian Technology Centre Holding Ltd. (ii) Attested copy of Certificate of Incumbency of M/s Russian Technology Centre Holding