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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

68 of the Act was refunded and consequently, the question of treating the same as concealed income for the purposes of levy of penalty is illegal. It is also submitted that the issue with regard to validity of the proceeding initiated under Section 271(1

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri Byru Venkateswarlu

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

271(1)(c) solely because the additions were confirmed in the quantum appeal, without examining the issue again in penalty proceedings with reference to the law and principles underlying the levy of penalty?” (2 of 10) [ITA-341/2005] 3. Counsel for the appellant has contended that the Assessing Officer has considered the case of the assessee and observed

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated for claiming inaccurate expenditure and concealment of income of Rs.2,81,33,700/-. Facts of ITA No.512 of 2017 6. ITA No. 512 of 2017 has been filed by the Revenue which arises out of the order of the Tribunal dated 28.03.2017 (Annexure A-IV) wherein, it was held that

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

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

1 and 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

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/s. Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd.,

The appeal is disposed off

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath & The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice K.Natarajan Income Tax Appeal Nos.170 To 175 Of 2010 Between:

1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Assessing Officer has recorded the satisfaction for initiating the penalty proceedings on the facts and circumstance of the case ? 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the penalty of Rs.43,500/- for the assessment year 1999-00, Rs.12,000/- for the assessment year

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. The Andhra Sugars Limited,

Appeal is disposed of as not pressed, without

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

271(1)(c) in respect of the addition of investment which it upheld under Section 68 in the hands

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

271. The Assessee also decided to pay in addition compensation amounting to Rs.1,18,38,705 in lieu of surrender of their rights in the flat. This expenditure was claimed by the Assessee as „revenue in nature‟ and was charged to the Profit and Loss Account („P&L Account‟). Proceedings before the AO 4. The Assessing Officer („AO‟) who picked

The Pr. Commissioner of Income tax (Central), vs. Sri Vaishnavi Educational Society,

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.51929/2014 C/W W.P.Nos.42063/2012, 30494/2013, 42671/2013, 638/2014, 797/2014, 1089/2014, 3211/2014, 3389/2014, 6180/2014, 10356/2014, 12014/2014, 12015/2014, 13043/2014, 13045/2014, 13206/2014, 13207/2014, 13398/2014, 13774/2014, 14149/2014, 14161/2014, 14494/2014, 14502/2014, 14521/2014, 14689/2014, 16646/2014, 17051/2014, 17594/2014, 19729/2014, 21158/2014, 23897/2014, 28861/2014, 30731/2014, 31723/2014, 33774/2014, 33777/2014, 34084/2014, 34259/2014, 34272/2014, 34391/2014, 35204/2014, 35243/2014, 35247/2014, 35305/2014, 35609/2014, 36164/2014, 36166/2014, 36489/2014, 36525/2014, 36971/2014, 37446/2014, 38055/2014, 38463/2014, 38471/2014, 38472/2014, 38661/2014, 38753/2014, 39383/2014, 39633/2014, 39832/2014, 40204/2014, 40379/2014, 41394/2014, 41422/2014, 41427/2014, 41428/2014, 41858/2014, 43815/2014, 43963/2014, 44306/2014, 44527/2014, 44742/2014, 44835/2014, 45486/2014, 46766/2014, 47103/2014, 47105/2014, 47106/2014, 47107/2014, 47608/2014, 47731/2014, 47821/2014, 47860/2014, 47913/2014, 48577/2014, 48880/2014, 49567/2014, 50260/2014, 50533/2014, 51294/2014, 51930/2014, 51931/2014, 51932/2014, 52760/2014, 53854/2014, 54059/2014, 54083/2014, 54236/2014

1. STATE OF KARNTAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001 2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE-560020 3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE-560020 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.V. SHASHIKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI. M.N. RAMANJANEYA GOWDA, ADVOCATE

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

271. The Assessee also decided to pay in addition compensation amounting to Rs.1,18,38,705 in lieu of surrender of their rights in the flat. This expenditure was claimed by the Assessee as „revenue in nature‟ and was charged to the Profit and Loss Account („P&L Account‟). Proceedings before the AO 4. The Assessing Officer („AO‟) who picked

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

section. Nonetheless, as an overall matter, GE is correct that in some instances, ITAT‟s characterization of certain conversations appears to overstate the importance of the activities in India (for e.g. e- mail chain on Reliance-GT Exhaust Height; e-mail chain on confirmation of RIL PO No. DG8/3389741). Nevertheless, in many other instances, ITAT‟s decision is sound

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