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

14 cheques and accordingly he determined the income of the respondent/assessee from brokerage @ 2% on the cash deposits. Under the circumstances, the addition made by the assessing officer under Section 68

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

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

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

Section 68 of the Evidence Act. Thus the plaintiffs have failed to prove that Munipapaiah executed a Will dated 13.06.1956. In view of the above discussion, I answer point No.1 in negative. 13. Point No.2: Plaintiffs examined their power of attorney holder as PW-1. PW-1 has no personal knowledge about the case and he has clearly admitted

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 and the findings of the Tribunal to this extent is arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse ? Re: Substantial question of law No.(i) 7 13. We find that the Tribunal itself has recorded a finding that sale turn-over of the assessee has substantially increased during the assessment year in question. No material has been produced

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

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

14. According to the appellants, the Codicil Ex.P-2 which ought to have been proved by the respondent is shrouded by suspicious circumstances and, therefore, could not have been accepted by the ld. Additional District Judge as a genuine document, for the reason that the said document completely excludes Sh.Dinesh Bahl and his family even though in earlier Will Ex.P-1 accepted

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

Appeal is partly allowed

68 of Evidence Act and on the ground that it was exclusive property of Smt.Rathnamma in view of Section 14

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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

14,080/- and agricultural income of Rs.12,44,850/-. On receipt of notice issued under Section 143(2), the assessee appeared and filed cash flow statement in support of the return of income filed. The cash flow statement submitted by the assessee showed credit of Rs.2,67,99,547/- as NRI receipts. This amount was ITA.No

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S Gulf Oil Corporation Pvt. Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

14.   Further   he   contended   that   GAFL   has  shown profit on sale of shares on which the  loss has been denied to the assessee. He in  this regard referred to the assessment order  of GAFL which is dated 19.01.1995 in which  income   has been  assessed   at Rs.8,68,478/­.  However,   it   was   seen   that   at   page   88   the  assessee  has  enclosed

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Jayalakshmi Chits

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

14.   Further   he   contended   that   GAFL   has  shown profit on sale of shares on which the  loss has been denied to the assessee. He in  this regard referred to the assessment order  of GAFL which is dated 19.01.1995 in which  income   has been  assessed   at Rs.8,68,478/­.  However,   it   was   seen   that   at   page   88   the  assessee  has  enclosed

The Commissioner of Income Tax - VI vs. M/s. Manikanta Iron AND Hardware

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

14.   Further   he   contended   that   GAFL   has  shown profit on sale of shares on which the  loss has been denied to the assessee. He in  this regard referred to the assessment order  of GAFL which is dated 19.01.1995 in which  income   has been  assessed   at Rs.8,68,478/­.  However,   it   was   seen   that   at   page   88   the  assessee  has  enclosed

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

Section 68 of the Act. 13. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the conclusion of the Tribunal in deleting the additions made cannot be faulted. Accordingly, the questions of law are answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The order of the Tribunal is, therefore, affirmed. 14

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

The appeals are dismissed

Section 68 of the Act. 13. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the conclusion of the Tribunal in deleting the additions made cannot be faulted. Accordingly, the questions of law are answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The order of the Tribunal is, therefore, affirmed. 14

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

14. The question of law raised by the assessee is as to whether the credit found in the Bank account could be taken as undisclosed investment or cash credit especially when the books of accounts referred to in Section 68

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

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

14 of FERA. 9.3.96: Shri D.C.Agrawal, Addl.DIT (inv.) telephonically contacted at his residence No. and apprised of the contents of the letters filed by the assessee on 8.3.96. He comminuted that the copies of these letters be forwarded to him by FAX. 11.3.96: As desired, the copies of assessee's reply have been transmitted through FAX to the Directorate

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

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

14 of FERA. 9.3.96: Shri D.C.Agrawal, Addl.DIT (inv.) telephonically contacted at his residence No. and apprised of the contents of the letters filed by the assessee on 8.3.96. He comminuted that the copies of these letters be forwarded to him by FAX. 11.3.96: As desired, the copies of assessee's reply have been transmitted through FAX to the Directorate

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

14 of FERA. 9.3.96: Shri D.C.Agrawal, Addl.DIT (inv.) telephonically contacted at his residence No. and apprised of the contents of the letters filed by the assessee on 8.3.96. He comminuted that the copies of these letters be forwarded to him by FAX. 11.3.96: As desired, the copies of assessee's reply have been transmitted through FAX to the Directorate