The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Hyderabad Security and Off Set Printers Ltd.,

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

u/s 132 of the Act and therefore such a surrender cannot amount to voluntary surrender and Date of Judgment 21-06-2018, ITA No.500/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) & Another Vs. M/s Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. 10/18 the Assessing Authority was justified in imposing penalty under Section 271[1][c] of the Act, rejecting the explanation

M/S.R.S.RANGADAS vs. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are disposed of, with no order as to costs

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961? ITA No. 405/2005 (3) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in taking the market value of the shares quoted at the stock exchange on 05.05.1998 as the basis for computing the capital gains under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act?" 2. ITA No.389/2007 filed by the Director of Income

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) r.w 274 of the Income-tax Act for concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars are initiated separately. (iv) The assessee has booked various expenses of contractual nature, vide order sheet entry dated 29.12.2009, the assessee was asked to show cause why the same should not disallowed u/s40a(ia). In response thereto the assessee

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

11. It was further contended that the RBI has not taken any action and therefore, such interference is not justified. Once the material on record clearly establishes that the liaison office is undertaking an activity of trading and therefore entering into business contracts, fixing price for sale of goods and merely because the officials of the liaison office

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

Section 27 begins with a proviso and states that when any fact is deposed to as discovered, in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved, 49 whether it amounts to a confession