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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

ii) General power of superintendence must be distinguished from the interference in the adjudication process. The authority in which a discretion is vested can be compelled to exercise that discretion, but not to exercise it in any particular manner. iii) The Court must be mindful of the fact that the adjudication process must be free from any kind of bias

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

ii) General power of superintendence must be distinguished from the interference in the adjudication process. The authority in which a discretion is vested can be compelled to exercise that discretion, but not to exercise it in any particular manner. iii) The Court must be mindful of the fact that the adjudication process must be free from any kind of bias

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, the assessing officer himself noted that the assessee on being enquired about the nature of transaction with the Mumbai companies submitted on oath on 15.12.2006 before the DDIT (I&B), Kolkata that he has got cash of equivalent amount from the companies and against the same, cheque has been issued. The assessing officer further

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

II [CIT(A)], Raipur whereby the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant/assessee filed against the Order dated 30.3.2015 of the Assessing Officer (A.O.), under Section 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

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

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

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

In the result, the appeals are allowed

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

II, Hyderabad, with Permanent Account/G.I.R. No.N-707/ABEPN 6301 L. The appellant filed his returns of income for the assessment year 1998-99 on 31.10.1998 and for the assessment year 1999- 2000 on 29.9.1999. For the assessment year 1998-99 he declared loss of Rs.1,91,209/- and for the next assessment year he declared loss of Rs.5,21,560/-. The returns

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

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

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

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

3 Joint APLs and such inventory was made pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench dated 23rd August, 2012. Further, the Hon'ble Division Bench in the order dated 4th May, 2020 held that the unanimous report of Joint ALPs has not been disputed. Further, the inventory of assets records the share holding held by the estate

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

Bench: J. UMA DEVI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

II. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE: (a) The Assessee, a partnership firm was engaged in the business of construction & transport operations during the relevant period. It had filed IT Return for the Assessment Year 2009-10 claiming an expenditure of - 5 - ITA No. 383 of 2016 Rupees 70,68,28,574/- allegedly paid to ‘Transport Creditors’. During the course

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s. BDR Projects Pvt. Ltd.

ii) On the contrary, Explanation 2 which, as it presently stands, appears after Section 28(11) of the Act as already stood enacted with effect from 8th April 2011 opens with the words „for the removal of doubts‟. It is made clear that non-levy, short-levy or erroneous refund prior to 8th April 2011 would be governed

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in not appreciating that two 3 orders of penalty cannot be passed for one Assessment year and further whether it is permissible in law to issue notice under Section 271(1)(c) for the Assessment year 2002-03 but pass an order of penalty for the Assessment year

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

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

ii) Whether under the facts in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of the CIT (A) of cancelling the penalty of Rs. 99,68,280/- 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

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

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