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

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

u/s 27 cannot implicate the accused in any way. In any case, the mere recovery of a kitchen knife can hardly be incriminating. 117. Neither the IO, nor the witnesses to the recoveries of the two knives and the axe depose to the weapons having any blood stains on them. Further neither do the seizure panchnamas mention the presence

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

gains in connection with the business of exploration, etc. of mineral oils/operation of aircraft in the case of non- ITA 621/2017 & connected matters Page 78 of 85 residents. In our considered opinion, the approach of the AO in estimating income at 10% of sales made in India, in the given circumstances, is perfectly in order and does not require