Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Sri B.Ramanarayanba Rao

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 12Th December, 2023 Appearance: Ms. Anupa Banerjee, Adv. …For The Appellant. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. ...For The Respondent. 1. Supplementary Paper Book Filed Today By The Assessee Is Taken On Record. 2. Heard Ms. Anupa Banerjee, Learned Counsel For The Appellant/Assessee & Mr. Amit Sharma, Learned Standing Counsel For The Respondent/Income Tax Department. Facts: 3. Briefly Stated Facts Of The Present Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In Trading (Export & Domestic) Of

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1961’). 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld the aforesaid addition

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

sections 68 and 69 of the Act. In consideration of all these observations, we are inclined to hold that the share application money as raised in the grounds of appeal ITA Nos.547/2013 & other connected matters Page 9 of 13 cannot be held as non-genuine and added as income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. Consequently, additions

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

The appeals are dismissed

sections 68 and 69 of the Act. In consideration of all these observations, we are inclined to hold that the share application money as raised in the grounds of appeal ITA Nos.547/2013 & other connected matters Page 9 of 13 cannot be held as non-genuine and added as income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. Consequently, additions

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s Indur Green Power Private Limited

In the result, all the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Income and Expenditure Account ascertained by one or more property qualified Auditor/s. X. If upon a winding up or the dissolution of the Company, there are remains after the satisfaction of all the debts and liabilities, any property whatsoever, the same shall not be distributed amongst the members of the Company but, shall be given or transferred to such other

Commissioner of Incometax-1, Hyderabad vs. M/s. Divis Laboratories Ltd.,

The appeals are allowed

addition, it was also contended by the Department relying on Section 64(2) of the VDIS, 1997 that once the Assessee had been given a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, she was not entitled to any relief under the VDIS, 1997. 16) In view of these contentions, therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders passed

PENDURTHI CHANDRASEKHAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The appeal is allowed and all the four substantial

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, while confirming the addition of Rs.3,40,000/- as unexplained credit under Section 68 of the Income

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Hyderabad vs. M/s. Vasant Intermediates Private Limited

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Ashok S. Kinagi

Income Tax Versus Ajax Products Limited.” 12. Section 68 of the Evidence Act deals with the proof of execution of document required by the law to be attested, which reads as under: “68. Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested. – If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.Visakha Industries Ltd

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Income Tax v P.Mohanakala(2007)291 ITR 278). It is contended that, in the previous year the ITA.No.283 of 2010 11 explanation offered by the assessee for the cash credits received from Dr.K.P.Ali was accepted is not a relevant factor. It is further contended that the Assessing Officer had made the addition in accordance with section 68

The Commissioner of Income Tax - IV vs. M/s. Mekins Agro Product (P) Ltd.

68, the Calcutta High Court, while constructing the expression " expenditure incurred " in s. 44A of the Act, observed: "depreciation claimed shall include the expenditure incurred." There are only two recognised methods of accounting : (1) cash basis, and (ii) mercantile basis. Under the cash basis only cash transactions are recorded. It is only cash receipts and cash (U payments which find

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), vs. M/s Country Club Inda Limited

Section 1. Assignment and Assumption. Assignor hereby assigns to the Assignee all the rights, entitlements, covenants and obligations of the Assignor under the Equipment Contract to sell, supply and deliver the Equipment to the Purchaser under the Equipment Contract and the Assignee hereby assumes, and agrees with all of the parties hereto, to perform, observe and be bound by each

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Dr.Kodela Siva Prasada Rao

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

addition of Rs.22,76,750/- to the income of the assessee under Section 68 of the Act by order dated

A.P.State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited vs. The Income tax Officer

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

68 deals with the proof of the execution of the document required by law to be attested; and it provides that such a document shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution. These provisions prescribe the requirements and the nature of proof which must be satisfied

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Dr. T.Ravi Kumar

The appeal is disposed of

ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, RANGE- 17, BANGALORE. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.Sri Krishna Drugs Limited

In the result this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

income of Rs. 14,144/-. In the regular scrutiny assessment, ITANo. 391/2012 Page 1of 5 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified substantial addition of Rs. 1,08,60,000/- was made under Section 68

Commissioner of Income Tax [TDS] vs. Sri VAraha Laxmi Nrusimha Swamy DEvastanam

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943 WA NO. 518 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 895/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE PROVINCIAL SUPERIOR, CARMALITE PROVINCIAL HOUSE CMC CONGREGATION, PALA

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Swapna Lahari Pvt Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943 WA NO. 518 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 895/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE PROVINCIAL SUPERIOR, CARMALITE PROVINCIAL HOUSE CMC CONGREGATION, PALA

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Smt G Sailaja

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943 WA NO. 518 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 895/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE PROVINCIAL SUPERIOR, CARMALITE PROVINCIAL HOUSE CMC CONGREGATION, PALA

Commissioner of Income TAx-II, Hyderabad vs. M/s. Sri Balaji Bio MAss Power Pvt. Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943 WA NO. 518 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 895/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE PROVINCIAL SUPERIOR, CARMALITE PROVINCIAL HOUSE CMC CONGREGATION, PALA