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

7. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the tribunal has erred in deleting the addition under Section 68

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

Section 68 of the Act, 1961. 7. Aggrieved, the revenue filed ITA No.1809/Kol/2009 and the assessee filed ITA/2002/Kol/2009 before

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

Section 68 of the Act. As such, the impugned Orders are just and proper and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7

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

7. Shri Dinesh Bahl is purportedly excluded as he was suffering from cancer and expressed a desire not to inherit the Kautalya Marg house as also that his family is well-settled and is not likely to return to the country. FAO No. 327/2007 Page 3 of 12 8. In the Codicil Ex.OW1/4, on the other hand, the bequest made

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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

7. A reading of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act makes it clear that the section would

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 Act for Assessment Years (AYs) 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. These amounts were primarily towards share application money received from various companies. The AO made additions/disallowance of Rs. 7

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

The appeals are dismissed

Section 68 of the Act for Assessment Years (AYs) 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. These amounts were primarily towards share application money received from various companies. The AO made additions/disallowance of Rs. 7

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Dr.Kodela Siva Prasada Rao

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 68 of the Act. 7. The assessee filed I.T.A.No.295/CIT(A)/GNT/ 2006-07 to the CIT (Appeals

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

Section 68, 69 and 69A of the Act can at all be applied to the appellant when the IT Department's own case was that the appellant was only a money launderer or hawala operator ? b. Whether after having added 2% commission on the money received to the appellant's income on the footing that the appellant

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

7. Mr. Mohammed Rafiq, keeping in perspective the order dated 22.12.2015 and also the scope of revision under Section 63 of the Act, argued with sufficient emphasis two grounds viz. remand by the Deputy Commissioner as illegal and violation of principles of natural justice that were unsuccessfully raised by the Revenue before the Tribunal. Stated, it is argued that

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

Appeal is partly allowed

7 SCC 189, for the proposition that where a gift deed was challenged, it was required to be proved in compliance with Section 68

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

The appeals are allowed

7) For the year 1994-95, the estimated sales turnover was Rs.1,03,05,611/- and for the year 1995-96, it was Rs. 1.30 Crores. This was done on 30.03.1999. 8) In the meantime, vide the Finance Act, 1997, the Union of India introduced the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997. 9) Under Section 64 of the Finance

M/S. SRIMAN SAI SECURITIES INV. FIN. LTD., vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,KARIMNAGAR.

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,M.S.K.JAISWAL

7  4. We have carefully considered the respective submissions of learned counsel for both parties and perused the record. 5. Section 68

PENDURTHI CHANDRASEKHAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The appeal is allowed and all the four substantial

7. The Assessing Officer added the unsecured loan received by the assessee from Smt. Shanti Chowdary and the unexplained gift received by the assessee from his father-in-law, as unexplained cash credit under Section 68

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

Section 68 of the Act. 6. We notice from the reading of the assessment order - which is a fairly detailed one and has discussed threadbare the evidence placed before the authorities. The reference to the sum of Rs.22 lakhs was in the context of amounts claimed to have been spent towards freight and forwarding charges. Although, the succeeding question

Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. M/S Sri Ramanjaneya Poultry Farm Pvt., Ltd.,

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

7. In the present case, it is seen that there is no dispute that what are the dues of the plaintiff towards the defendants that stood determined in terms of the Order dated 7.7.2003 passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission, and which Settlement Commission was approached by the plaintiff for settlement of the disputes and determination of the entitlement

THE COMMI.OF INCOME TAX,HYD. vs. VAIBHAV

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

68 of the Act as "Income from other sources". Thus, by the assessment order dated 30.03.2000 passed under Section 1a3(3) of the Act, the aforesaid addidons were made to the total income of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the above order of the assessment, assessee preferred first appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V (C-entral