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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2,01,250 19.2.92 40.25 9,80,000 16.1.92 Rs.4,43,750/­ c) 30,000 12,22,500 19.2.92 40.75 28 L & T 19,45,000 18.2.92 a) 10,000 194.50 21,30,000 b) 5,000 9,35,000 19.2.92 187.00 21.1.92 142.00 Rs.7,50,000/­ Total LossRs.16,88,250/­ 8.2. The   Assessing   Officer   after   verification  found that

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2,01,250 19.2.92 40.25 9,80,000 16.1.92 Rs.4,43,750/­ c) 30,000 12,22,500 19.2.92 40.75 28 L & T 19,45,000 18.2.92 a) 10,000 194.50 21,30,000 b) 5,000 9,35,000 19.2.92 187.00 21.1.92 142.00 Rs.7,50,000/­ Total LossRs.16,88,250/­ 8.2. The   Assessing   Officer   after   verification  found that

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2,01,250 19.2.92 40.25 9,80,000 16.1.92 Rs.4,43,750/­ c) 30,000 12,22,500 19.2.92 40.75 28 L & T 19,45,000 18.2.92 a) 10,000 194.50 21,30,000 b) 5,000 9,35,000 19.2.92 187.00 21.1.92 142.00 Rs.7,50,000/­ Total LossRs.16,88,250/­ 8.2. The   Assessing   Officer   after   verification  found that

The Commissioner of Income TAx-IV vs. Sajjan Kumar Mann

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

2) of the Act is not an auditor of the choice of the Assessee. The auditor is nominated by the Revenue and his work is not controlled by the Assessee. Where the special audit report is unable to be furnished within the time stipulated by the AO, extension of time can be granted by the AO on an application made

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

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

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

PENDURTHI CHANDRASEKHAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The appeal is allowed and all the four substantial

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-in-law and the gift is covered by the provisions of Section 56 of the Act? 2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

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

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

2) was issued on 12- 12-2005. Further notice under Section 142 (1) was issued on 28-06-2006 calling for total salary particulars including all allowances received by him in the capacity of Minster during the assessment year 2003-04. 3. The assessing officer reopened the earlier assessments and brought to tax the allowances received by the assessee

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,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

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

142 (2) (A) of the Income Tax Act were also ordered. Though, this Court is not directly concern with details of those facts, yet to the extent it is relevant is worth noticing that the appellant did not cooperate with the Special Auditors who had to proceed with some difficulty and nevertheless filed the report within the time allocated

PR COMMR OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. K RAVINDER REDDY, HYDERABAD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

2)(l). We find no infirmity in the ruling of ARR on this aspect. In the above situation, MSCo is rendering services through its employees to MSAS. Therefore, the Department is right in its contention that under the above situation there exists a service PE in India ITA 621/2017 & connected matters Page 54 of 85 (MSAS). Accordingly, the civil appeal

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

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

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

Section 27 begins with a proviso and states that when any fact is deposed to as discovered, in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved, 49 whether it amounts to a confession