THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

deposit, advance rent etc. Further the payments had been made through account payee checks purely on commercial consideration. 56. The AO, however, did not agree and disallowed Rs.41,84,947 as being in excess and unreasonable and valued back for the income of Assessee. In appeal, the CIT(A) reversed the AO on the ground that

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

deposit, advance rent etc. Further the payments had been made through account payee checks purely on commercial consideration. 56. The AO, however, did not agree and disallowed Rs.41,84,947 as being in excess and unreasonable and valued back for the income of Assessee. In appeal, the CIT(A) reversed the AO on the ground that

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III HYDERABAD vs. M/s. Vasant Organics Private Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

house property is to be deducted from the gross income of the deceased. In addition to this, the deceased had paid income tax of Rs. 23,411/- for the assessment year 1999-2000. Therefore, in view of “Vimal Kanwar and Others vs Kishore Dan and Others” reported in [(2013) 7 SCC 476], and “Sarla Varma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corp

Smt.Sudia Indira vs. The Income Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal from order stand dismissed

Cash 28/11/2009 ­­ 50,000/­ 2 Dena   Bank,   Nana  Varachha   Road  15/12/2009 35691 50,000/­ Page 5 of 21 C/AO/442/2012 CAV JUDGEMNT Branch,   Surat.  395006 3 ­As above­ 15/12/2009 35682 1,00,000/­ 4 ­As above­ 15/12/2009 35693 1,00,000/­ 3,00,000/­ Aforesaid amount has been received by the Party of the  Second   Part  from the Party

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

property to RFSL, Mandi and Dharamshala. Rajesh Kumar (PW32) was posted as Assistant Director, RFSL, Mandi, who issued the report of analysis (Ext. PX). Arun Kumar (PW33) was employed in Jain Oil Mills and proved that Pradeep Gupta was looking after the work in the absence of Vinod Jain. Satwinder Kumar (PW34) developed the photographs and transferred the contents

The Director of Income Tax-(Exemptions), vs. Vasavi Academy of Education

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

deposits under insurance policies, costly household articles. The prosecution has come up with the allegation that in the year 1996, though the property has been purchased in the name of the father-in- law of accused Prasanta Kumar Panda, namely, Prafulla Chandra Mishra, it has been acquired by accused Prasanta Kumar Panda and then has been shown to have been

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Delco Remy Electricals (India) Ltd

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed

Bench: This Court. This Court Passed An Order Directing The Advocate-Receiver To Prepare A Balance Sheet Of The Corporation First Of All & Directing The Accused To Conduct The Business In His Firm With The Concurrence & Supervision Of The Advocate-Receiver Until The Suit Is Disposed Of & Further Directing The Accused To Shift The Business To Any Of The Premises Acceptable To The Other Partners Of The Corporation. While So, The Petitioner Came To Know That The Accused Had Taken Away The Cash From The Borrowers & Hire Purchase Agreement Holders Of The Corporation Without Remitting The Cash To The Bank Account On 18.4.1998. He Also Addressed A Letter To The Advocate-Receiver, For

property, accounts, deposits and collection of installments belonging to Sri Padmalaya Finance Corporation. It is alleged that the respondent- accused shifted the Corporation to his own house and is operating the finance business from his house and he kept the account books in his house and he has not allowed other partners to see the accounts. As such, L.W.1-revision petitioner

The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Vaishnavi Educational Society

In the result, this Cross Objection is allowed and the suit is

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

cash, but without leading any proof on it. As far as DW3 - Sri.Sajeed is concerned, his deposition would, in fact, only prove that he had no source whatsoever. In Exhibit B34 Sale Deed, he is described as a farmer, though in his testimony as DW3, he claims to be a 'Freelance Model Maker' (sic). He claimed to be a graduate

THEE COMMSSR.OF INCOME TAX.HYD. vs. CHALLA SHANKER REDDY.HYD.

Bench: L.NARASIMHA REDDY,T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

cash was deposited therein by Rajeswar Rao on 31.09.1994' The deposit slips are part of the t, record. The statement of SOD account of the resPondent No'2 shows that an amount of Rs.4,91,511/- was transferred to the account of the appellant No.1 on the same day' The appellant No'1/Image Developers has not shown any material

COMMR.OF I.T. RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/S.NARAYANA CHOWDARYAND ORS KAKINADA

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

cash was deposited therein by Rajeswar Rao on 31.09.1994' The deposit slips are part of the t, record. The statement of SOD account of the resPondent No'2 shows that an amount of Rs.4,91,511/- was transferred to the account of the appellant No.1 on the same day' The appellant No'1/Image Developers has not shown any material

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - (TDS), vs. M/s. Suman Chit Funds (P) Ltd.,

cash was deposited therein by Rajeswar Rao on 31.09.1994' The deposit slips are part of the t, record. The statement of SOD account of the resPondent No'2 shows that an amount of Rs.4,91,511/- was transferred to the account of the appellant No.1 on the same day' The appellant No'1/Image Developers has not shown any material

Sampathirao Apparao vs. Income Tax Officer,

The appeals stand dismissed

deposited. The Revenue recorded statement of Sunil Mehta under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 1961 Act) wherein he admitted that amount lying in the account of Sarup Chand belonged to his family members. The said amount was sale proceeds of a house in Amritsar. The said house was owned by Smt. Kamla Mehta

Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. The Agrasen Coop. Urban Bank Ltd.,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

property and Rs.83,60,46,867/- as income from the business of banking. The assessee claimed deduction of business income under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act. The assessing officer, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax took up the return for scrutiny and found that the assessee had Rs.61,87,16,546/- as statutory reserve

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. The Andhra Bank Employees Co.Operative Bank Limited

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

property and Rs.83,60,46,867/- as income from the business of banking. The assessee claimed deduction of business income under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act. The assessing officer, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax took up the return for scrutiny and found that the assessee had Rs.61,87,16,546/- as statutory reserve

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/s. The A.P.Vardhaman(Mahila)Cooperative Urban

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

property and Rs.83,60,46,867/- as income from the business of banking. The assessee claimed deduction of business income under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act. The assessing officer, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax took up the return for scrutiny and found that the assessee had Rs.61,87,16,546/- as statutory reserve

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S The A.P.Mahesh Coop. Urban Bank Ltd,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

property and Rs.83,60,46,867/- as income from the business of banking. The assessee claimed deduction of business income under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act. The assessing officer, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax took up the return for scrutiny and found that the assessee had Rs.61,87,16,546/- as statutory reserve

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:

house property. The Assessing Officer (AO) then finalized the block assessment on 29th December, 2003 determining the total undisclosed income as Rs.3,32,09,650/-. The appeal filed by Shri Banka was partly allowed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT (A)) allowing deletion of some of the additions but confirming a major portion of the additions. 6. Aggrieved

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Mr. Gopi Chand

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

deposit of the Sale Deeds. That in the Agreement, there is no mention of the said Mortgage Deed dated 4.9.1998. It 10 is the further case of the defendants that they are living in the suit properties along with their children. That the contents of the Agreement were never read over and explained to them. Hence, the defendants sought