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

section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 being unexplained cash credits in the bank accounts of the assessee, the source whereof was not proved? iv) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in substituting the income of Rs.4,07,17

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

17 and shall be deemed to always have been „proper officers‟. Further, this is notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any judgment, decree or order of any Court of law. While the said provision is intended to overcome the defect pointed out in the decision of the Supreme Court in the Sayed Ali case, Section

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Hyderabad vs. M/s. Vasant Intermediates Private Limited

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Ashok S. Kinagi

Section 68 of the Evidence Act. Thus the plaintiffs have failed to prove that Munipapaiah executed a Will dated 13.06.1956. In view of the above discussion, I answer point No.1 in negative. 13. Point No.2: Plaintiffs examined their power of attorney holder as PW-1. PW-1 has no personal knowledge about the case and he has clearly admitted

A.P.State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited vs. The Income tax Officer

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

68 deals with the proof of the execution of the document required by law to be attested; and it provides that such a document shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution. These provisions prescribe the requirements and the nature of proof which must be satisfied

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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

section 68 of the Act itself provides, where any sum is found credited in the books of the assessees for any previous year the same may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessees of the previous year if the explanation offered by the assessees about the nature and source of such sums found credited

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-1 vs. M/s. New River Software System Pvt Ltd.,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

sections 68 and 69 of the Act. In consideration of all these observations, we are inclined to hold that the share application money as raised in the grounds of appeal ITA Nos.547/2013 & other connected matters Page 9 of 13 cannot be held as non-genuine and added as income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. Consequently, additions

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Adaptec [India] Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

sections 68 and 69 of the Act. In consideration of all these observations, we are inclined to hold that the share application money as raised in the grounds of appeal ITA Nos.547/2013 & other connected matters Page 9 of 13 cannot be held as non-genuine and added as income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. Consequently, additions

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Chirla Rama Reddy, Contract

Appeal is dismissed with costs

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice N.K.Sudhindrarao R.S.A.No.70/2007

17 of the Registration Act? 2. Can there be a declaration that the sale deed with respect to agricultural property in favour of a company is valid in the light of bar contained in Section 79(b) of Land Reforms Act? 3. Can there be a declaration that the sale deed with respect to property which has vested

SRS AND Sri Sai Ganesh Productions vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Central)

Sections 68, 69 and 69A. In fact, the said assessment orders produced along with the records clearly indicate that the officer had conducted enquiries and found that there was no evidence of assets acquired by the said agent; using the amounts that came into similar accounts maintained by that assessee. In the present case, the Assessing Officer

Commissioner of Income Tax-V, vs. M/s.Sirveen Control Systems

Appeal is partly allowed

17 law. It was alternatively contended that ‘B’ schedule property was voluntarily put into common hotch-pot by defendant no.1 and therefore, plaintiffs were also entitled for a share in it. It was submitted that, while giving a finding on issues no. 1, 2 and 4, trial court held that ‘A’ schedule property was acquired by defendant no.1

Commissioner of Incometax-1, Hyderabad vs. M/s. Divis Laboratories Ltd.,

The appeals are allowed

68(2) of VDIS, 1997, dt. 31.03.1998 was also issued to the Assessee, and therefore, in view of the disclosure by the Assessee under the VDIS, 1997, the action of the Assessing Officer in assessing the income of the Assessee at higher rate, cannot be sustained and has to be deleted. 14) These orders were challenged by the Department before

Pinna Nageswara RAo, vs. Commissioner of Income tax, IV (A.P)

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

17 of 171 Mr. Kartik Jindal, Ms. Palak Gupta, Ms. Supriya Udey, Advocates for DDA. + LA.APP. 293/2007 JAGBIR SINGH .....Appellant Through: Mr. Anuroop, Mr. Gaurav Bidhuri, Advocates. versus UOI & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma

PRL COMMR OF INCOME TAX-7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S SRI VENKATESWARA PADMAVATHI COMPAY, KHAMMAM DIST

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

17 of 171 Mr. Kartik Jindal, Ms. Palak Gupta, Ms. Supriya Udey, Advocates for DDA. + LA.APP. 293/2007 JAGBIR SINGH .....Appellant Through: Mr. Anuroop, Mr. Gaurav Bidhuri, Advocates. versus UOI & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma

Kuchipudi Krishna Kishore vs. THE DCIT, CIR-2[1],

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

17 of 171 Mr. Kartik Jindal, Ms. Palak Gupta, Ms. Supriya Udey, Advocates for DDA. + LA.APP. 293/2007 JAGBIR SINGH .....Appellant Through: Mr. Anuroop, Mr. Gaurav Bidhuri, Advocates. versus UOI & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma

Commissioner of Income Tax -II, vs. M/S Kasila Farms Ltd.,

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

17 of 171 Mr. Kartik Jindal, Ms. Palak Gupta, Ms. Supriya Udey, Advocates for DDA. + LA.APP. 293/2007 JAGBIR SINGH .....Appellant Through: Mr. Anuroop, Mr. Gaurav Bidhuri, Advocates. versus UOI & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma

THE PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. L. SURYAKANTHAM, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

17 of 171 Mr. Kartik Jindal, Ms. Palak Gupta, Ms. Supriya Udey, Advocates for DDA. + LA.APP. 293/2007 JAGBIR SINGH .....Appellant Through: Mr. Anuroop, Mr. Gaurav Bidhuri, Advocates. versus UOI & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma

Commissionr of Income TAx-3 vs. M/s State Bank of Hyderabad

Bench: ANIS,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

17 of 171 Mr. Kartik Jindal, Ms. Palak Gupta, Ms. Supriya Udey, Advocates for DDA. + LA.APP. 293/2007 JAGBIR SINGH .....Appellant Through: Mr. Anuroop, Mr. Gaurav Bidhuri, Advocates. versus UOI & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma