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

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri Byru Venkateswarlu

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Disallowance of Dalali Rs.2,136/- 15” 6. Counsel for the appellant has further contended that the Gujarat High Court in the case of National Textiles vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 249 ITR 0125 in para 21-24 has observed as under: “21. The provisions of section 68 permitting the assessing officer to treat unexplained cash credit as income

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

The appeal stands dismissed

money Total price payable by between first party (M/s. Mrigiya Eelectornic s Industries P. Ltd.) and recorded owners first party (M/s. Mrigiya Electronics Industries P. Ltd.) to recorded owners paid by First party, (M/s. Mrigiya Electronics Industries P. Ltd) to recorded owners second party (M/s. Prestige City Developers P. Ltd) to first party (M/s. Mrigiya Electronics Industries P Ltd.) @ Rs.8.90