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

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

The appeal stands dismissed

iii) The assessee was asked to file justification of expenses of Rs.1,25,000/- claimed in the name of one Smt. Sangeeta Thakur. No reply has been filed in response to the specific query dated 29.12.2009. this expenses is disallowed on both counts of allowability as well as u/s 40(a)(ia). Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1

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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

6 discussing his roles and responsibilities provides through bullet point five that 'At that point of time there was a robust R Table process followed by all GE businesses. Under such R Table process, no person sitting in India could make a proposal to any customer in India without prior approval of GE overseas entities nor could any person sitting