Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

142(1) of the Act proposing therein to add the following deposits in the Bank Account No.10309, Canara Bank (SSI Branch), Sanjay Place Agra as the assessee's undisclosed income: 06.06.1998 Rs. 5,28,183.20 10.06.1998 Rs. 5,15,300.30 29.06.1998 Rs. 5,79,424.00 10. The A.O. also proposed to estimate the assessee's income at Rs.4

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Section 13 which provides for Rule making power of the Central Government in respect of minerals. Section 13 subsection (1) WP(C). 11249/2010 & other contd cases. -:88:- and Section 13 Sub-section (2) in so far as relevant in the present case are as follows: “13. Power of Central Government to make Rules in respect

The Commissioner of Income Tax I vs. M/s. Bhagiradha Chemicals AND Industries Ltd.,

The appeal is disposed of

68,953/- under normal provisions and book- profit of Rs.9,85,25,142/-. Tax was payable on book profits as per Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short). The aforementioned return was taken up for scrutiny and additions of Rs.1,00,500/- and Rs.1,17,141/- on substantive basis, and Rs.10 lacs on protective basis

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

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

142 (1) dated 12-09-2006 requested the assessee to furnish the complete details of receipt of the above amount from the NRI such as nature of the transaction, name and address of the person from whom the amount was received and bank account particulars in which this amount was realized in Indian currency. In response, the assessee’s authorized

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s Indur Green Power Private Limited

In the result, all the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

142(1) respectively of the Act along with the questionnaire was issued dated 24th June, 2011. The Assessing Officer called upon the respondent-assessee to make good its case that the assessee company could be said to be constituted for charitable purpose within the meaning of Section 2(15) of the Act. To put it in other words

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

section 142(1) and 143(2) of Income-tax Act, 1961 alongwith detailed 53 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters questionnaire as also statutory notice u/s 16(2) alongwith detailed questionnaire under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 have been kept in the Paper Book prepared for submission to the Hon'ble Settlement Commission, a copy of which

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

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

section 142(1) and 143(2) of Income-tax Act, 1961 alongwith detailed 53 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters questionnaire as also statutory notice u/s 16(2) alongwith detailed questionnaire under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 have been kept in the Paper Book prepared for submission to the Hon'ble Settlement Commission, a copy of which

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

section 142(1) and 143(2) of Income-tax Act, 1961 alongwith detailed 53 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters questionnaire as also statutory notice u/s 16(2) alongwith detailed questionnaire under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 have been kept in the Paper Book prepared for submission to the Hon'ble Settlement Commission, a copy of which

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

section 142(1) and 143(2) of Income-tax Act, 1961 alongwith detailed 53 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters questionnaire as also statutory notice u/s 16(2) alongwith detailed questionnaire under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 have been kept in the Paper Book prepared for submission to the Hon'ble Settlement Commission, a copy of which

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

142(1) dated 21.05.2009 were issued and served and the authorized representatives accordingly attended the proceedings and produced the books of accounts. The assessment was then framed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 30.11.2009 and the assessee claimed the repayment of liabilities of Rs.2,81,33,700/- as application of income which was construed as repayment

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

68 of 171 with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA + LA.AP. 256/2017 POJA .Apelant Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR .Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Sri Laxmi Narasimha Wines,

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

68 of 171 with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA + LA.AP. 256/2017 POJA .Apelant Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR .Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar

PENDURTHI CHANDRASEKHAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The appeal is allowed and all the four substantial

1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, while confirming the addition of Rs.3,40,000/- as unexplained credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, is right in law in holding that there should be sufficient reasons for receiving gifts though it is from father

Dr.D. Siva Sankara Rao-HUF vs. I.T.O. Ward-2, Eluru

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

1 Bigha sold from village Kilokari for consideration of Rs. 2,07,500/-. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the learned Reference Court held that there was a possibility that the sale deed was executed at inflated prices to claim a higher compensation since it was a known fact that such schemes of acquisition become known to the residents

P.V.S.Raju vs. The Addl. C.I.T.

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

1 Bigha sold from village Kilokari for consideration of Rs. 2,07,500/-. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the learned Reference Court held that there was a possibility that the sale deed was executed at inflated prices to claim a higher compensation since it was a known fact that such schemes of acquisition become known to the residents

The Pr. Commissioner of Income vs. Shri. Vishnu Mohan Reddy Chintapally

Appeal is disposed of

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

68,09,650/-. 9. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. But was, thereafter, picked up for scrutiny under CASS. A notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 03.09.2015 and duly served upon the Firm on 04.09.2015. Further, notices under Sections 143(2) and 142

M/s. Canara Securities Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO,T.AMARNATH GOUD

1 and 2 companies and certain other individuals as Directors of 4 listed companies, 3 subsidiaries of one listed company and an unlisted company is bad in law since the Joint APLs merely represents the estate of PDB and thus, had no rights to seek appointment of Directors in companies in which PDB was not a "Member". Further, without prejudice

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

1. The assessee in this appeal under Section 268 of the Income Tax Act urges that two questions of law arises for consideration. The first, it is submitted, pertains to the correctness of the ITAT directions to add Rs.22 lakhs towards alleged bogus freight and forwarding expenditure by an estimating exercise. The second question of law urged is that