Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. S.P.Office Needs Pvt Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

reassess the 'total income' of the aforementioned six years in separate assessment orders for each of the six years. In other words there will be only one assessment order in respect of each of the six AYs "in which both the disclosed and the undisclosed

Commissioner of Income Tax-VI, vs. M/s. Madras Chakkar Beedi Factory Pvt.Ltd.,

The appeal is disposed of

undisclosed income. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who by an order dated 06.06.2002 deleted the additions on account of three credits and held that the credits in the bank accounts were already disclosed by the assessee to the department and cannot be assessed in block assessment. However, liberty was given to the Assessing

Sunil Kumar Ahuja vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

income for such assessment d by the Assessing Officers as a Officer will exercise normal of the six years previous to the hich the search takes place. The wer to assess and reassess the entioned six years in separate f the six years. In other words, ment order in respect of each

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-1 vs. M/s. New River Software System Pvt Ltd.,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

reassessment order was passed pursuant to the search proceedings under Section 132, whereby inter alia additions of various amounts were made under Section 68 of the Act for Assessment Years (AYs) 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. These amounts were primarily towards share application money received from various companies. The AO made additions/disallowance

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Adaptec [India] Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

reassessment order was passed pursuant to the search proceedings under Section 132, whereby inter alia additions of various amounts were made under Section 68 of the Act for Assessment Years (AYs) 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. These amounts were primarily towards share application money received from various companies. The AO made additions/disallowance

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. RASA AGROTECH PRIVATE LTD.

Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

undisclosed income as Rs.1,33,08,737. Aggrieved by the above order, Mr. Arvinder Singh filed an appeal before the ITAT. By the impugned order dated 5th April 2007, the ITAT held that no valid opportunity was granted to the Assessee before making the impugned order of assessment and further that the requisite satisfaction was not recorded

THE COMMISSIONER OF I.T.-I, HYDERABAD. vs. M/S. AKASH CABLE TV NETWORK PVT.LTD., HYDERABAD.

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

reassessment proceedings were initiated after information was received from Director of Investigation regarding bogus/accommodation entries allegedly provided by different companies which were managed and operated by Mukesh Gupta and Rajan Jassal. The Assessing Officer noticed that these companies had been issued shares by the appellant-assessee. A question arose whether the share application money received was a genuine transaction

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Kaveri Bar AND Restaurant,

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

reassessment after expiry of four years from the end of relevant assessment year that in addition to escapement of income additional duty cast upon the assessing officer is to establish that the escapement was due to omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully or truly necessary material facts necessary for the assessment and that some

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, vs. Sri. Sudheer Reddy

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

undisclosed investment made in the construction multiplex and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has rightly confirmed the assessment order, but by means of the impugned order, the Tribunal has wrongly and in an arbitrary manner deleted the same. Rebutting the arguments advanced on behalf of the Revenue, learned counsel for the respondent – assessee has submitted that the Assessing Authority