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-I vs. M/s. BDR Projects Pvt. Ltd.

68. There is also merit in the contention of the Petitioners that Section 28(11) confers validity only on „the proper officer.‟ As explained in Consolidated Coffee Ltd. v. Coffee Board (supra), the use of article „the‟ as opposed to „an‟ or „any‟ is indeed significant. Only officers who have been assigned the functions of the „proper officer

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

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

68,280/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) on account of inaccurate particulars furnished by assessee in original return and detected by the Assessing Officer during scrutiny u/s 143(3)?” 3. The counsel for the appellant and the assessee has taken us to the judgment of ITAT which held as under:- We have heard rival submissions and considered them carefully. After

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

143(3) of the Act, 1961 determining the income of Rs.3,33,18,027/- being brokerage/commission @2% on the aforesaid cash deposits of Rs.166.59 crores. He also added the aforesaid amount of Rs.166.59 crores in the income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act, 1961. Aggrieved, the respondent/assessee filed an appeal being Appeal

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

1), Raipur, which was duly served on the appellant/assessee on 22.8.2013. Ultimately, on 30.3.2015, assessment order under Section 143(3) of 4/9 (Tax Case No. 63 of 2022) the Act was passed by the A.O. re-computing the income of the appellant/assessee at Rs.34,02,650/- after making addition of Rs.24,78,800/- under Section 68

Commissioner of Income Tax- IT and TP vs. M/s. Louis Berger International Inc.,

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

143 (Tri. Delhi), that in these decisions, there is no issue of passing an order under Section 17(5) of the Act, after passing of Bills of entry within fifteen days, hence these decisions are distinguishable and not applicable.‖ 11. It was this decision which came to be subjected to challenge before the CESTAT. The CESTAT in CUSAA 27/2022

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s. Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

143 (Tri. Delhi), that in these decisions, there is no issue of passing an order under Section 17(5) of the Act, after passing of Bills of entry within fifteen days, hence these decisions are distinguishable and not applicable.‖ 11. It was this decision which came to be subjected to challenge before the CESTAT. The CESTAT in CUSAA 27/2022

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

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

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

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. 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 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-II vs. Energy Solutions International India Pvt Ltd.,

Bench: J. UMA DEVI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

1) section 37, which has the following text: “Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in section 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee) laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing

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

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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1 SHRI.T.B.KUNHIMAHIN HAJI THEKKIL PO, KASARAGOD-671 541 ADDL.R2 TO R7 IMPLEADED 2 S.L.P KUNHIBI W/O. SHRI. KUNHIMAHIN HAJI, PADOOR HOUSE, CHETTANCHAL POST.,THEKKIL VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3 K.M. THAHIRA, AGED 48 YEARS D/O SHRI. T.B. KUNHIMAHIN HAJI, -DO-DO- 4 K.M. MOHAMMED SHEREEF, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O SHRI. T. B. KUNHIMAHIN HAJI, -DO - DO- 5 K.M. MOIDEEN KUNHI, AGED