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

68 read with Section 131/133(6) of the Act, relevant paragraph of which states as under:- “6. Section

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

6. The assessing officer passed the assessment order dated 31.12.2007 under Section 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

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Sri B.Ramanarayanba Rao

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 12Th December, 2023 Appearance: Ms. Anupa Banerjee, Adv. …For The Appellant. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. ...For The Respondent. 1. Supplementary Paper Book Filed Today By The Assessee Is Taken On Record. 2. Heard Ms. Anupa Banerjee, Learned Counsel For The Appellant/Assessee & Mr. Amit Sharma, Learned Standing Counsel For The Respondent/Income Tax Department. Facts: 3. Briefly Stated Facts Of The Present Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In Trading (Export & Domestic) Of

6. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed first appeal before the CIT(A), who determined the GP Rate to 5% and sustained the addition under Section 68

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

6) What order or decree? 9. Point No.1: It is the case of the plaintiffs that Muniswamiappa @ Ammojappa as well as his four sons namely Munipapaiah, Ramaiah, Muniappa and Venkataswamy constitute an undivided Hindu joint family and they were having substantial movable and 20 immovable properties which were joint in nature. The said Muniswamiappa died on 03.09.1935. After the demise

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

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

6. As per Codicil (Ex.P-2) Shri Dinesh Bahl has been excluded completely from the estate of Smt. Ram Piari and the entire front portion of Kautalya Marg property has been bequeathed to Sh.Ashok Bahl. Consequently, the appellants are now not entitled to any share of the property in question. Further all other assets have been divided equally between S/Shri Rajneesh

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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

section 68 as the assessee had failed to offer proper explanation for the NRI receipts. 6. The learned counsel

SYED ABBAS MIAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-I,KURNOOL

section 4 (1) of the Act of 2012. 52. It is in this factual matrix that we are considering the issues that have fallen for decision in these batch of matters. 34 53. In holding that the Entry Tax Act, 2012 was ultra vires the Constitution of India, learned Single Judge, in the impugned judgement and order dated June

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

Section 68 of the Income Tax act. The assessee has to prima facie prove (1) the identity of the creditor/subscriber; (2) the genuineness of the transaction, namely: whether it has been transmitted through banking or other indisputable channels: (3) the creditworthiness or financial strength of the creditor/subscriber: (4) If relevant details of the address or PAN identity

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

The appeals are dismissed

Section 68 of the Income Tax act. The assessee has to prima facie prove (1) the identity of the creditor/subscriber; (2) the genuineness of the transaction, namely: whether it has been transmitted through banking or other indisputable channels: (3) the creditworthiness or financial strength of the creditor/subscriber: (4) If relevant details of the address or PAN identity

The Commissioner of Income Tax - II vs. M/s. Kumar Raja Associates

In the result, all the Tax Revision

Bench: Floor, Opp.Gurudware Bus Stop, Th Stat, 0/O.Meghana Towers, 4 Visakhapatnam. ... Petitioner & M/S.Pulp-N-Pack [P] Limited, Tadimalla ... Respondent : Sri T.C.D.Sekhar, Gp For Commercial Tax Counsel For The Respondent : Sri S Suribabu, Representing On Behalf Of Sri S R R Viswanath Counsel For The Petitioner

6 or sub-section (1) or clause (b) of 40 RNT, J & HN, J TREVC. No. 83 of 2008 & batch sub-section (2) of Section 8 with reference to the tax payable under the CST Act by a dealer on his turnover in so far as the turnover or any part thereof relates to sale or purchase

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

6 JUDGMENT [ ITA 303/2013, ITA.304/2013, ITA.305/2013, ITA.306/2013 & ITA.307/2013 ] Vinod Chandran, J The questions of law arising from the appeals as found in the memorandum of appeal are as follows:- a. Whether the provisions of Section 68

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [TDS] vs. M/s.KCIL-MEIL [JV]

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

6 assessee dealers are carried out by a single person or all of them are doing the business as common (Para 36) At any rate none of them can be made jointly liable for any offences committed by any of them especially when the registration obtained by them for running their business under the Act stands in the name

Gutta Venkata Rama Devi vs. The Income Tax Officer

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

6 of 171 Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus UOI AND 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. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

6 of 171 Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus UOI AND 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. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Sri Laxmi Narasimha Wines,

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

6 of 171 Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus UOI AND 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. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with

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

Appeal is partly allowed

6) Whether plaintiffs prove that the registered gift deed dated 6.12.2005 executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3, is not binding on them? 7) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to the relief sought for? 8) What decree or order? 8. During pendency of the suit defendant no.1 died on 23.10.2008. As all legal representatives of defendant no.1

M/S. GAUTAMI POWER LIMITED vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

68-C of the old Act, pending on the date of enforcement of the new Act, namely, 1.7.1989, • the period of one year as prescribed under S. 100(4) should be computed from the date of commencement of the new Act. This interpretation would give full effect to • both. the Sections

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

The appeals are allowed

6) Thereafter, the concerned Assessment Officer framed ex parte assessment under Section 144 of the Act and called for the information regarding total sales/ turnover made by the Assessee from the Excise and Taxation Department, Shimla and estimated the sales turnover. 4 7) For the year 1994-95, the estimated sales turnover was Rs.1