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

143(3) of the Act, re- computing the income of the appellant/assessee at Rs.34,02,650/- after making addition of Rs.24,78,800/- under Section 68

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

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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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.283 of 2010 4 seen credited in the capital account of the assessee with the Chandragiri Construction Company. On being

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

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

143 (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

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

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

143(3) read with Section 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

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Shri B Srinivasa Rao

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Dated : 1St July, 2025 Appearance: Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. ..For Appellant Mr. Saurabh Bagaria, Adv. Mr. Rites Goel, Adv. Ms. Samrita Das, Adv. ..For Respondent

68 of the Act. We have perused the order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 23.12.2016 under Section 143

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 (TDS), vs. M/s Country Club Inda Limited

143(3)/147 of the Act. Assessment Order dated 18th December, 2006 14. The AO observed that the Assessee had not booked any establishment cost, depreciation or any other indirect costs in its accounts. Further, the Assessee had also not showed any source of funds. The AO noted that the equipment stated to have been supplied by the Assessee

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Jyothi Wines,

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

68, proposing addition of unexplained credits; but eventually the additions were made under Section 69 as undisclosed investments. There was a further addition made of Rs.7,48,750/-, which was a cheque payment made by one of the assessee- firms to T.S.Asok, one of its partners, which was said to be refund of advance paid on a property

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

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 of loan taken from the Marketing Board for construction of rural roads and development of Mandis. The Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that the assessee had not shown increase

V.C. NANNAPANENI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

In the result, the appeals are allowed

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

Section 143(3) of the Act determining the total income of the appellant at Rs.1,74,68,625/- and in the process

Paro Food Products, vs. Commissioner of Income Tax -VI

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which was dismissed by an order dated 29.09.2009. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was upheld by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for short) vide order dated

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Energy Solutions International India Pvt Ltd.,

Bench: J. UMA DEVI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

68 ITR 200 (207) 5 273 ITR 50 - 15 - ITA No. 383 of 2016 from the precincts of Section 260A which employs the expression ‘substantial question of law’. C. AS TO BURDEN OF PROOF AND IMPOSSIBILITY OF ITS DISCHARGE: (i) As already mentioned above, the burden of proving the expenditure incurred ‘wholly and exclusively’ for the purpose of business

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Margadarshi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd.,

The appeal is dismissed

143 (3) for the assessment year 2007-2008 on 07.09.2009 (A-2). On 29.11.2010, the proceedings GAURAV ARORA 2023.04.03 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/document P&H HC, Chandigarh ITA-228-2013 2023:PHHC:047619-DB 2 were completed and addition of Rs.1,01,016/- was made and keeping in view the provisions

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

Section 2(15) of the Act?. 44. We are dealing with a taxing statute. The intention of the legislature in a taxation statute is to be gathered from the language of the provisions particularly where the language is plain and unambiguous. In a Taxing Act, it is not possible to assume any intention or the governing purpose