Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Nara Constructions,

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) states that where in respect of any facts material to computation of total income of an assessee, the assessee offers no explanation or where an assessee offers an explanation, which he is ITA No. 625/2017+connected Page 3 of 16 not able

Commissioner of Income Tax-2, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars/concealment of the income are being initiated separately on this issue.” Aggrieved by the order passed by the AO, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) however deleted the impugned disallowances with the following observations: “9. After considering rival contentions and perusing material on record

PR COMMR OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. K RAVINDER REDDY, HYDERABAD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

business contract in their names. They have not charged any commission or any remuneration and they have not earned any such amount in India for liaison activities. The entire existence of the office in India is made exclusively out of the funds of the head office and they have not borrowed any money. They have not acquired any properties. They

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Shri Raaj Kumar Jain

busy road connecting Atta market to ONGC. It is admitted to prosecution witnesses that people were moving on the road and therefore presence of independent witnesses at the place of interrogation was not in doubt. It is also not the case of prosecution that any independent person was approached to witness the recording of disclosure and such independent person declined