SRS AND Sri Sai Ganesh Productions vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Central)

Section 68, 69 and 69A as unexplained cash credits and investments. Considering the fact that the entire transactions were hawala transactions, commission at the rate 2% was also assessed as income of the assessee. The First Appellate Authority and the Tribunal confirmed it, against which the present appeal is filed. For the year 2004-05, the entire amounts deposited

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [TDS] vs. M/s.KCIL-MEIL [JV]

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

cash due to him for his incidental work. This shows that the appellant has nothing to do with the estimate slips. In the light of the deposition of the Manager at the time of Cross examination the Intelligence Officer ought to have withdrawn his previous observations made in the notice, which have been proved totally incorrect. Apart from the above

THE APR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. SHRI TUMMALA SRI RAM BABU

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

68,589/- with the Registry on 01.09.2018, in purported compliance of orders dated 24.07.2018 read with 21.08.2018. 7. On 10.09.2018, Court appointed M/s PN Chopra & Co. as a Valuer to ascertain the realizable value of the assets mentioned in the two affidavits filed by the petitioner. On 23.10.2018, the Valuer submitted its Report. 8. On 24.12.2018, the petitioner deposited

The Commisioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s. Hyderabad House Pvt. Ltd.,

deposits of Rs.1,05,00,000/- in case of Shabnam Khetrapal and Rs.70,00,000/- from Benu Khetrapal on various dates between 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010 (A.Y. 2010-2011) and why this amount should not be treated as unexplained cash credit. 3. The C.I.T. passed the order under Section 263 of the Act on 03.05.2011 and added sum of Rs.83

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

cash credit - added back by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT to the tune of Rs.6,84,22,895/-. 4. It is urged that so far as the addition of Rs.22 lakhs goes, the Assessing Officer and the higher authorities fell into error in relying solely on the testimony and deposition of one Vineet Bhargava who stated that

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. K. V. Srinivasa Rao

cash and laptop, which were dismissed, and she could not have pursued the present application. The laptop did not belong to Babita Jain and was seized from the petitioner; therefore, it was prayed that the order dated 05.04.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II be quashed and set aside. 16. We have heard Ms Sheetal Vyas, learned counsel

THEE COMMSSR.OF INCOME TAX.HYD. vs. CHALLA SHANKER REDDY.HYD.

Bench: L.NARASIMHA REDDY,T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

cash was deposited therein by Rajeswar Rao on 31.09.1994' The deposit slips are part of the t, record. The statement of SOD account of the resPondent No'2 shows that an amount of Rs.4,91,511/- was transferred to the account of the appellant No.1 on the same day' The appellant No'1/Image Developers has not shown any material

COMMR.OF I.T. RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/S.NARAYANA CHOWDARYAND ORS KAKINADA

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

cash was deposited therein by Rajeswar Rao on 31.09.1994' The deposit slips are part of the t, record. The statement of SOD account of the resPondent No'2 shows that an amount of Rs.4,91,511/- was transferred to the account of the appellant No.1 on the same day' The appellant No'1/Image Developers has not shown any material

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - (TDS), vs. M/s. Suman Chit Funds (P) Ltd.,

cash was deposited therein by Rajeswar Rao on 31.09.1994' The deposit slips are part of the t, record. The statement of SOD account of the resPondent No'2 shows that an amount of Rs.4,91,511/- was transferred to the account of the appellant No.1 on the same day' The appellant No'1/Image Developers has not shown any material

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. M/S GOLDEN STAR FACILITIES AND SERVICES PVT LTD., HYD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

deposits in the area concerned: Provided that a mining lease may be granted upon the filing of a mining plan in accordance with a system established by the State Government for preparation, certification, and monitoring of such plan, with the approval of the Central Government.” 101. The proviso to Section 5(1) is relevant since it contains a further restriction

Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Visakhapatnam vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Paderu

Appeal stands dismissed,

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

68 of the Income- tax Act, 1961, suggests that (i) there has to be credit of amounts in the books maintained by the assessee; (ii) such credit has to be a sum of money during the previous year; and (iii) either (a) the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of such credits found in the books

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX vs. M/S V.SATAYANARAYANA

The appeal is allowed

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

deposit account at the aforementioned post office. It was further noted in the complaint that the complainant's father had deceased, leading to the need for the complainant to replace his father's name with his own in those account passbooks. During this process, the complainant approached the processing clerk, identified as the appellant, who allegedly demanded

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

Sections 36 (1) (iii) of the Act are met, deduction of interest cannot be denied merely because the Assessee was a cash rich company having enough resources of its own. 68. It is pointed out that in the earlier years Gopal Das Bhawan was still under construction and the interest was capitalised only up to the stage of completion

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Sections 36 (1) (iii) of the Act are met, deduction of interest cannot be denied merely because the Assessee was a cash rich company having enough resources of its own. 68. It is pointed out that in the earlier years Gopal Das Bhawan was still under construction and the interest was capitalised only up to the stage of completion

The Commissioner of Income -Tax - III, vs. Shri Taher Ali

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68 / 79 CRA-322-08gr any letter to defendant no.1 or her husband or DW 1 Mangaldas about the same. He denied that there was no agreement of leave and licence of 1968. In the agreement of 1968, Rs.2000 was shown as deposit amount. He paid that amount by cash. He, however, does not have document to show that

M/S NMDC LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed

Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

68 of 2016whereby and whereunder the Learned Family Court while allowing the petition filed under Section 12(1) (C) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by appellant/petitioner/wife has granted Rs. 30,00,000/-(Thirty Lakh) as permanent alimony to appellant and herein the amount of alimony has been challenged on the ground of miscalculation

M/s. Maruthi Movies vs. Income Tax Officer

Bench: This Court & Making The Same A Rule Of Court, Alongwith Decree Against Respondents Awarding Rs.5,35,920/- Paid By The Petitioner To The Arbitrator As Their Share Of Fees As Per Order Dated 21.12.2010. 2. Respondent No.1 Has Filed Its Objections To The Award Under Section 30 & 33 Of The Act In Form Of I.A. No.9067/2011. Respondent No.2 Has Also Filed Its Objections To The Award.

cash or in form of money paid by the landlord to the tenant in order to allure him to relinquish his rights in tenancy. In the present case, there was no such payment being made by the petitioner to respondent nos.2 and 3. 35. Learned counsels for respondents have further submitted that the petitioner infact lacked funds to perform

The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Vaishnavi Educational Society

In the result, this Cross Objection is allowed and the suit is

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68. In addition, when Sri.Rafi, as DW2, was specifically asked about the details of the plaint schedule properties purchased by him RFA 554/15 & CON. CASES 54 through the Sale Deeds, he was unable to offer proper answers, as are evident from pages 5, 6, 7, 27, 28 and 29 of his deposition; nor did he know about a shed bearing

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Hycons Infrastructure (India) Ltd.

The appeals are dismissed

deposited Rs. 2.00 crores during investigation. 39. M/S Sharp Menthol India Limited, Delhi New Delhi 25.00 Clearanc e of raw material (Crude Mentha Oil) without manufacturing excisable goods and b y misdeclaring it as finished goods (Deterpinated/ fractionated Mentha Oil) and wrongly claiming benefit of area based exemption and irregularly passing on a Ce nvat credit to the purchaser. Goods