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

The appeals are dismissed

47,897/- on unsecured loans was added under Section 68 of the Act and an amount of `1,51,200/- which

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Jayalakshmi Chits

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68,478/­.  However,   it   was   seen   that   at   page   88   the  assessee  has  enclosed  computation  of total  income of GAFL according to which income has  been computed at NIL by chiming unabsorbed  business   loss   brought   forward   from   Asst.  Year 1991­92 at Rs. 16,38,462/­ and in the  note   total   business   loss   to   be   carried  forward to asst. year 1993­94

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S Gulf Oil Corporation Pvt. Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68,478/­.  However,   it   was   seen   that   at   page   88   the  assessee  has  enclosed  computation  of total  income of GAFL according to which income has  been computed at NIL by chiming unabsorbed  business   loss   brought   forward   from   Asst.  Year 1991­92 at Rs. 16,38,462/­ and in the  note   total   business   loss   to   be   carried  forward to asst. year 1993­94

The Commissioner of Income Tax - VI vs. M/s. Manikanta Iron AND Hardware

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68,478/­.  However,   it   was   seen   that   at   page   88   the  assessee  has  enclosed  computation  of total  income of GAFL according to which income has  been computed at NIL by chiming unabsorbed  business   loss   brought   forward   from   Asst.  Year 1991­92 at Rs. 16,38,462/­ and in the  note   total   business   loss   to   be   carried  forward to asst. year 1993­94

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

Appeal is partly allowed

47 YEARS 5(b) M. ANUSHA D/O. LATE M. MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS 3 5(c) RAKSHITHA M. D/O. LATE MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS 5A TO 5C ARE R/AT NO.58, CHIKKANNAMMA TEMPLE STREET JORIPET, BENGALURU - 560 002. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. SUBASH REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING) SRI. B.S. SHRIKANTH, ADVOCATE

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

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

Section 98 and Order 47 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The Board of Directors of companies can pass resolutions by majority because Regulations 68

Commissioner of Income Tax-V, vs. Sri Vinod Krishna Conjeevaram,

The appeal is dismissed

Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act. It is the case of revaluation of assests and the goodwill was carried in the balance sheet of the firm. There were no transfer of any assets by the firm to the retiring partners. No assets were allotted to the retiring partners. The accounts of the retiring partners were settled

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. The Andhra Petro Chemicals Limited

Section 68 of the State Universities Act, 1973. The representation submitted by him was rejected by the Chancellor vide order dated 19.05.2017. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Chancellor and has sought other reliefs also, which are extracted above. In his representation made to the Chancellor, petitioner contended that respondent

SHRI GYAN KUMAR AGARWAL (INDL) vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

68, 69, 694, 698 and 69C of the Act will apply 6 and the reference to the financial year in those Sections shall be construed as reference to the relevant previous year falling in the block period including the previous year ending with the date of search or requisition. The Tribunal after considering the provisions of Section

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 up for scrutiny under CASS. A notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 03.09.2015 and duly served upon the Firm on 04.09.2015. Further, notices under Sections

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

47,28,440/-. The same was subsequently revised under section 154 at a loss of Rs. 114,46,13,711/- and further recomputed at Rs. 116,30,34,284/- after appeal effect . In another words the assessed figure at all stages in the case of the appellant company for A. Y. 1995-96 has been a loss and relying

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Section 18 and explained its significance in the following words: ―22. The significance of Section 18 of the Act can be understood in the light of the above provisions. Section 18 provides for provisional assessment of duty in cases specified in sub-section (1) of the section. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) deals

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Section 18 and explained its significance in the following words: ―22. The significance of Section 18 of the Act can be understood in the light of the above provisions. Section 18 provides for provisional assessment of duty in cases specified in sub-section (1) of the section. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) deals

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

47 of 66 particular proceeding. Section 3(2) has therefore advisedly limited the area of operation of any particular officer to certain local limits, and not unlimited throughout the State. The conferment of such power throughout the State is not therefore in consonance with Section 3(2) and is ultra vires the said provision. 35. A provision similar

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri Byru Venkateswarlu

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68 permitting the assessing officer to treat unexplained cash credit as income are enabling provisions for making certain additions, where there is failure by the assessee to give an explanation or where the explanation is not to the satisfaction of the assessing officer. However, the addition made on this count would not automatically justify imposition of penalty under section

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. K. V. Srinivasa Rao

Section 145 of the Evidence Act. If a contradiction is put to the witness and it is denied by him, then his attention has to be drawn to the statement made by such witness before the Police or any other previous statement and he must be given a reasonable opportunity to explain as to why such contradiction appears

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Shri Raaj Kumar Jain

47. Next submission advanced on behalf of the appellant is that the confession of SK was not properly proved. 48. A reading of s. 164 CrPC makes it clear that the section envisages a written contemporaneous record of the accused's confession as only a written document can be contemporaneously recorded, signed and have a memorandum. While