PENDURTHI CHANDRASEKHAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The appeal is allowed and all the four substantial

seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act was carried out in the group cases of M/s. Ambiance Properties Private Limited and its sister concerns. The assessee was a Director of one of those companies by name M/s. Dakshin Shelters Private Limited. Therefore, his residential premises was also subjected to search. 5. After issuing notice under Section

Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. M/S Sri Ramanjaneya Poultry Farm Pvt., Ltd.,

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

search and seizure of the plaintiff’s premises on 4.2.1995. Pursuant to the order of the Settlement Commission, the computation of income of the plaintiff was to be done and this computation of income was done by the Income Tax Officer under Section 245(D)(6) of the Income Tax Act vide Order dated 20.9.2005. It is this order which

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

seizure but was not the Income Tax Officer who could pass an order under sub-section (5) of Section 132 could not retain the seized documents etc. beyond 15 days and, therefore, he could not moot a proposal under sub-section (8) for further retention of the documents beyond 180 days. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs

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

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

seizure but was not the Income Tax Officer who could pass an order under sub-section (5) of Section 132 could not retain the seized documents etc. beyond 15 days and, therefore, he could not moot a proposal under sub-section (8) for further retention of the documents beyond 180 days. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

seizure but was not the Income Tax Officer who could pass an order under sub-section (5) of Section 132 could not retain the seized documents etc. beyond 15 days and, therefore, he could not moot a proposal under sub-section (8) for further retention of the documents beyond 180 days. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs

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

seizure but was not the Income Tax Officer who could pass an order under sub-section (5) of Section 132 could not retain the seized documents etc. beyond 15 days and, therefore, he could not moot a proposal under sub-section (8) for further retention of the documents beyond 180 days. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs

Sunil Kumar Ahuja vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

68,34 appeal befor who vide his assessee file dated 23.09.2 3. incorrect in assessee, wh the assessee. Section 153A search. The i that proceedi found during 4. has relied on Meeta Gutgu challenge bef 5. that additions additions had Private Limi which had m purchase of l ultimate bene o. 97 of 2023 er Section 153A

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

seizure proceedings. Subsequently, the appellant and the other concerns which were subject to the search were issued with notice on 30.08.2001 under Section 158 (BC) requiring the furnishing of return of income including undisclosed income for the period 1.4.1990 to 14.2.2001. Apparently, during the course of the proceedings having regard to the complexity of accounts, special audit under Section

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

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

Search and seizure operation, photo copies of share certificates of M/s. Jivika Leasing and Finance Limited were noticed. The said share certificates are in the name of the assessee, Mr. Gyan Kumar Agarwal and members of his family. ln order to verify the source of genuineness for investing in the shares, notice under Sectionl5S BD of the Act, dated

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

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

seizure operations on the premises of one Mr Sanjay Bhandari in the month of September 2005, in connection with the import of motor vehicles under the EPCG Scheme at a concessional rate of duty. 4.2 Pursuant to the search, notices were issued by the DRI for production of the vehicle in question, which was in possession of Mr Sameer Thapar

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

seizure valued at Rs. 1,04,118.52 should not be confiscated, and customs duty in the sum of Rs. 5,07,274 should not be levied in terms of Section 28 (1) of the Act by involving the extended period of limitation. Penalties under Sections 112 (a) and 112 (b) (i) and (ii) of the Act were also proposed

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Shri Raaj Kumar Jain

Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused has denied his implication in the case/offence and has claimed that he was tortured and that his nails were extracted, his genitals were burnt and petrol was put in his anus. He offered to get himself medically examined to prove his allegations. The accused SK also claimed that he was extended other tortures and the C.B.I

THE COMM. OF INCOME TAX RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/S B.KRISHNA MURTHY AND OTHERS

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

seizures were affected in the presence of a Constable Ashok Kumar (PW-4) and ASI Siri Upadhyay (PW-6). Meanwhile, Shobha Kaul (PW-83), wife of Dr. Kaul, was informed by the wife of A-1 that the DL of SK had been found at the MCD office and that DW-1 had lodged a missing report. PW-83 stated

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

search was conducted by the police. He stated that a false case was registered against him. He worked in a brick kiln and had no concern with the sale of arms. Accused Pradeep Gupta stated that he was present in the factory and had helped to carry the deceased Vinod Jain to the hospital. He admitted that police visited

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

The appeal is allowed

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

search and seizure, with PW-2's signature on the search list and post-trap memorandum marked as Exhibit 1/1 and Exhibit 2/3, respectively. (This testimony was corroborated by PW-3 and PW-5.) viii. During cross-examination, PW-2 revealed his initial approach to PW- 6, who directed him towards the appellant. When the appellant declined to accept