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:

undisclosed income for the block period as ‘NIL’. Page 3 of 7 5. A notice under Section 142 (1) of the IT Act along with a questionnaire was issued on 27th November, 2002. Sri Banka then filed his explanation as regards the source of tax, investment in jewellery and house property

Sampathirao Apparao vs. Income Tax Officer,

The appeals stand dismissed

undisclosed income of Rs.77,25,000/- as short term capital gain arising on account of sale of a residential property. The surrendered income included cash seized from the bank account of Sarup Chand. 5. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 28.04.2009 framed assessment for the assessment year 2007-08 qua both the appellants herein. The assessment order was also passed

The Commissioner of Income TAx-IV, vs. M/s. Mahaveer Enterprises (India) Limited

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Housing Society admeasuring 829.25 sq.mtrs. was of the individual ownership of the petitioner Pannaben Niranjan Mehta and was her self-acquired property. Thus the petitioner was the holder of the land in question within the meaning of the said term as envisaged under the provisions of the Act. In the circumstances, as prescribed under Rule 5 of the Rules read

SRI PAVAN KUMAR AGARWAL vs. DY. CIT, NIZAMABAD.

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

property ? 4. Appellant is an assessec under the Act having thc status of an individual carrying on rhe busincss o[ sale of clectronic goods. For the assessment vear 1,996-97, assessee filed return of income on 1,7.03.1,997 admlttlng income of Rs.2,43,320.00. Assessing officer, in the course o[ the assessme nr proceediflgs, noticed that

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Jyothi Wines,

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

properties for the purpose of building multistoreyed complexes in a project named Cordial Regency. Assessment was made on M/s.Cordial Developers and on a protective basis, it was made on M/s.Cordial Company, both of which were set aside by the first appellate authority, which order stood confirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. ITA. Nos.211

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. L. SURYAKANTHAM, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

undisclosed and un- known reasons for subjecting certain individuals or corporations to hostile or discriminating legislation. (Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S. R. Tendolkar AIR 1958 SC 538). 113. The petitioners have also challenged the notifications on the ground that it violates article 301 as well as articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. However, in the entire petitions