Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Atyam Suryanarayana

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 5Th February 2024. Appearance: Mr. Om Narayan Rai, Advocate Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate …For The Appellant. 1. Heard Sri Om Narayan Rai, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Appellant. None Appears For The Respondent Assessee. 2. Affidavit Of Service Filed Today By Learned Counsel For The Appellant, In Compliance Of The Orders Dated 17.02.2023 & 15.01.2024, Is Taken On Record. Service Of Notice Upon The Respondent Assessee Is Found To Be Sufficient. 3. This Appeal Was Admitted By Order Of This Court Dated 03.09.2010, On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law:- “I) Whether The Learned Tribunal Was Justified On The Facts & Circumstances Of This Case To Follow The Ratio Decided By The

Section 68 of the Act itself provides, where any sum is found credited in the books of the assessees for any previous year the same may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessees of the previous year if the explanation offered by the assessees about the nature and source of 11

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

Section v.. V 11(1). 6. Initially we were inclined to accept the submission raised by the Revenue that there are several good reasons why we have declined to interfere and refer the matter to a larger bench to consider judgment of this Court in DIT vs. Vishwa Jagriti Mission, ITA No.140/2012 (Del.). 7. The controversy in question

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Sri Ch.Govardhan Naidu

The appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

68 of the Act or for that matter for taking action under Sections 131/133(6) of the Act and simply proceeded to decide the appeal of the appellant/assessee against the mandate of the aforesaid provisions of law. 10. Accordingly, the impugned Orders passed by the ITAT and the CIT(A) affirming the Assessment Order passed

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

11. As a mandate of clause ‘C’, a Will is required to be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom should have seen the testator’s sign or put his mark on the Will or should have seen some other person sign the Will in his presence and the direction of the testator or should have received from

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 Act, 1961 is quite correct and it 6 does not give rise to any substantial question of law. The finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard is the findings of fact. Discussion & Findings: 11

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

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

68 of the Evidence Act?” FAO No. 327/2007 Page 9 of 12 21. While replying the first question, the Apex Court has observed:- “Question-1: 9. 'Will' and 'codicil' are defined respectively in Clauses (h) and (b) of Section 2 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 as under:- "2(h) 'will' means the legal declaration of the intention

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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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 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

Commissioner of Income Tax-V, vs. M/s.Sirveen Control Systems

Appeal is partly allowed

11 equally with defendant no.1 for construction of building. PW.1 further admits that plaintiffs gave no objection in writing for transfer of khata of ‘A’ schedule property in favour of defendant no.1. PW-1 also admits that he has filed O.S.No.26459/2010 against plaintiff no.2 for partition and separate possession in the property gifted by defendant no.1 to plaintiff no.2

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

The appeals are allowed

11) Thereafter, a certificate was issued to her under Section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1997. 12) By virtue

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

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

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

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 68 cannot be invoked. 9. Aggrieved thereby, the Revenue has filed the present appeal before this Court. 10. Heard Sri B.Narasimha Sarma, learned counsel for the Revenue at the stage of admission. 11

The Commissioner of Income Tax I, vs. M/s. Prasad Film Laboratories Ltd.,

68, First Floor, measuring 405 Sq. Ft. approximately @ Rs. 1.750/-per Sq. Ft. 3. The case of Mr. Aggarwal was that he paid the Respondent the entire consideration of Rs. 3.22 crores and was given possession of the aforementioned properties. Along with the petitions, Mr. Aggarwal filed photocopies of the said four agreements to sell along with photocopies of stamped

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

The appeal is disposed of

11 assessment and directing a fresh assessment. 7. Thus, from close scrutiny of Section 263 it is evident that twin conditions are required to be satisfied for exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act firstly, the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and secondly, that it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue

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

The appeal is allowed

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

11. xxi. Additionally, PW-8 mentioned that PW-6 did not provide any information regarding the final deposit in PW-2's account, the imposition of a fine in PW-2's account, or the absence of a deposit in the month of March within PW-2's account. 10. In the case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMEE TAX-III vs. M/S.V.B.C.FERRO ALLOYS LTD

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

11 or Section 12 applg, if any such amount is cred.ited to tLrc profit and loss account. " 18. This court while gone through tl-re judgments relied upon by both counsels. In Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai Vs. M/s Dilip Kumar and Compang & Others (2"d supra) it is held as urtder : 52. to sum up, under