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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68, section 69 and section 70 passed by an authority empowered to do so under this Act not being an authority above the rank of an Assistant Commissioner may, within a period of thirty days from the date on which the order was served on him, appeal against such order, xxx xxx xxx (5) In disposing of an appeal

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri Byru Venkateswarlu

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

section 68 permitting the assessing officer to treat unexplained cash credit as income are enabling provisions for making certain additions, where there is failure by the assessee to give an explanation or where the explanation is not to the satisfaction of the assessing officer. However, the addition made on this count would not automatically justify imposition of penalty

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s. BDR Projects Pvt. Ltd.

penalty that has been paid falls short of the amount actually payable, then the proper officer shall proceed to issue the notice as provided for in clause (a) of sub-section (1) in respect of such amount which falls short of the amount actually payable in the manner specified under that sub-section and the period of one year shall

Paro Food Products, vs. Commissioner of Income Tax -VI

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

penalty proceedings and assessment proceedings are distinct and since, the assessee had not commenced the business, the assessee could 9 not have earned any income, which had not been accounted for. However, the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been appreciated. It is also contended that most of the amounts taken as advance and added under Section 68

EVEREST ORGANICS LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF I.T., HYDERABAD

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

penalty under various sections of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Till the year 1939 the 43 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was not established; and the Commissioner of Income-tax used to hear appeals while he was a party to the departmental proceedings also. Till 1960, the Central Board of Revenue too had power

C. SANYASI RAJU vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIZAG.

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

penalty under various sections of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Till the year 1939 the 43 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was not established; and the Commissioner of Income-tax used to hear appeals while he was a party to the departmental proceedings also. Till 1960, the Central Board of Revenue too had power

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.Samrakshna Electricals Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

penalty under various sections of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Till the year 1939 the 43 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was not established; and the Commissioner of Income-tax used to hear appeals while he was a party to the departmental proceedings also. Till 1960, the Central Board of Revenue too had power

M/s.GVK Petro Chemicals Private Limited,(Novo Resins AND vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,

penalty under various sections of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Till the year 1939 the 43 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was not established; and the Commissioner of Income-tax used to hear appeals while he was a party to the departmental proceedings also. Till 1960, the Central Board of Revenue too had power

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. The Andhra Sugars Limited,

Appeal is disposed of as not pressed, without

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) in respect of the addition of investment which it upheld under Section 68 in the hands

SHRI GYAN KUMAR AGARWAL (INDL) vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

penalty under Section 158 BC and 158 BD of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee fired appear before the commissioner of rncome Tax (Appeals)-|, Hyderabad and the appelrate authority dismissed the appeal by its common order dated Z2.OI.ZOOS. Thereupon, the assessee fited appeal vide l.T. (SS) A.No.137tHydl2OOS before the lncome Tax Appeilate Tribunar, Hyderabad Bench

THE COMMISSIONER OF IT IV vs. M/S. OCEAN SPARKLES LIMITED

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

Section 69 of the Act. However, the CIT(A) enhanced the quantum of addition by Rs.2,92,694/- from Rs.1,37,07,306/- to Rs.1,40,00,000/-, which was the value computed by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (hereafter ‘DRI’). 5. In the aforesaid context, it would be expedient to examine the explanation provided by the Assessee before

The Commissioner of Income Tax - VI vs. Sri Danda Dharanidhar

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68. Our conclusion in terms of the application of Section 194-H of the IT Act to the supplementary commission amounts earned by the travel agent is unequivocally in favour of the Revenue. Section 194- H is to be read with Section 182 of the Contract Act. If a relationship between two parties as culled out from their intentions

Commissioner of Income Tax- IT and TP vs. M/s. Louis Berger International Inc.,

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Section 18 and explained its significance in the following words: ―22. The significance of Section 18 of the Act can be understood in the light of the above provisions. Section 18 provides for provisional assessment of duty in cases specified in sub-section (1) of the section. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) deals with cases where the importer

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s. Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Section 18 and explained its significance in the following words: ―22. The significance of Section 18 of the Act can be understood in the light of the above provisions. Section 18 provides for provisional assessment of duty in cases specified in sub-section (1) of the section. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) deals with cases where the importer

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

68 of the Act were not tenable since the assessee did not maintain regular books of account and filed his return of income under Section 44AF of the Act being a retail trader of shoe soles. 13. On behalf of the Department, it was contended that notice under Section 148 was duly sent by speed post which was not returned

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

penalty of Rs.1,19,26,437/- was deleted which had been imposed vide order dated 28.03.2011 (Annexure A-II) and upheld by the Commissioner on 31.10.2011 (Annexure A-III). The Revenue is, thus, in appeal against the said reasoning of the Tribunal which had been ordered to be heard with the appeal filed by the Market Committee. Our Findings

SYED ABBAS MIAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-I,KURNOOL

68. Interim order passed by the Appeal Court on July 31, 2013 had permitted the assessment under the Entry Tax Act, 2012 to be continued. It had also restrained refund of the tax already collected. Appeal Court did not vacate the stay granted by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgement and order. Appeal Court had regulated the implementation

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

The appeals are dismissed

penalty, etc., but also in relation to the entitlements of an Assessee. This provision, namely, Section 38A of the Act incorporates in the statute the principle of a completed contract between the parties, whereunder th e parties are obliged to fulfil their respective part of the concluded contract, and in case of failure, the Court may step in and direct