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-III vs. M/s.Vibha Agrotech Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

3. For ready reference, relevant portion of the impugned order of the Tribunal is reproduced hereunder: “xxx We have heard both the parties and perused the record. It is noticed that the addition of Rs.5,13,516 made by the Assessing Officer being excess advances received by the assessee than shown by it in the Balance Sheet was not sustained

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

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

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

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

3. It is prayed that the order of the ld. CIT(A) be set aide and that of the AO may be restored. 4. The appellant craves leave to add or amend and ground of appeal before the appeal is heard or is disposed off.” The assessee is a private ltd. co. engaged in the business of manufacturing of computer

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

3) which deals with only fixed place PE. It is indeed correct that neither a dependent agent PE nor a fixed place PE can be constituted if the business activities undertaken are preparatory or auxiliary. However, Article 5(3) makes no mention of the authority to conclude contracts – language that is explicitly used in Article 5(4)(a). Accordingly, reading