The Commissioner of Income TAx-IV, vs. M/s. Mahaveer Enterprises (India) Limited

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

section (1), the competent authority shall determine the nature and extent of such claims and pass such orders as it deems fit. (3) At any time after the publication of the notification under sub-section (1) the competent authority may, by notification published in the Official Gazette of the State concerned, declare that the excess vacant land referred

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. 8. Aggrieved with the order of the ITAT, the assessee filed the present

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. We have heard learned counsel(s) for parties, considered their rival submissions and also perused the record of the case with utmost care and circumspection. 6/9 (Tax Case No. 63 of 2022) 8

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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

8) and (9) of section 44, section 49, section 67, section 68, section 69 and section

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

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

8. In the Codicil Ex.OW1/4, on the other hand, the bequest made to Sh.Dinesh Bahl in the Will dated 12.08.1986 has been transferred to his son, Sh.Rajiv Bahl on account of poor health of Sh.Dinesh Bahl i.e. the front portion stands bequeathed to S/Shri Ashok Bahl and Rajiv Bahl. All other assets were divided equally amongst S/Shri Rajneesh Bahl, Ashok

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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 68 will be attracted only when the assessee offers no explanation or the explanation so offered is not satisfactory to the Assessing Officer. It was found that in the present case assessee had established the identity of the creditor, the source for the credit and the genuineness of the transaction and had thereby discharged the initial burden

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

The appeal is disposed of

Section 263 of the Act firstly, the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and secondly, that it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on account of error in the order of assessment. 8. The aforesaid provision was considered by the Supreme Court in MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD.I supra and it was held that the phrase ‘prejudicial

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

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. 7,05,00,0001- on account of unexplained share capital/share application money received by the assessee company from Paradigm Hotel

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

The appeals are dismissed

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. 7,05,00,0001- on account of unexplained share capital/share application money received by the assessee company from Paradigm Hotel

EVEREST ORGANICS LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF I.T., HYDERABAD

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

8, 9 & 14 of FERA. 9.3.96: Shri D.C.Agrawal, Addl.DIT (inv.) telephonically contacted at his residence No. and apprised of the contents of the letters filed by the assessee on 8.3.96. He comminuted that the copies of these letters be forwarded to him by FAX. 11.3.96: As desired, the copies of assessee's reply have been transmitted through

C. SANYASI RAJU vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIZAG.

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

8, 9 & 14 of FERA. 9.3.96: Shri D.C.Agrawal, Addl.DIT (inv.) telephonically contacted at his residence No. and apprised of the contents of the letters filed by the assessee on 8.3.96. He comminuted that the copies of these letters be forwarded to him by FAX. 11.3.96: As desired, the copies of assessee's reply have been transmitted through

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.Samrakshna Electricals Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

8, 9 & 14 of FERA. 9.3.96: Shri D.C.Agrawal, Addl.DIT (inv.) telephonically contacted at his residence No. and apprised of the contents of the letters filed by the assessee on 8.3.96. He comminuted that the copies of these letters be forwarded to him by FAX. 11.3.96: As desired, the copies of assessee's reply have been transmitted through

M/s.GVK Petro Chemicals Private Limited,(Novo Resins AND vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,

8, 9 & 14 of FERA. 9.3.96: Shri D.C.Agrawal, Addl.DIT (inv.) telephonically contacted at his residence No. and apprised of the contents of the letters filed by the assessee on 8.3.96. He comminuted that the copies of these letters be forwarded to him by FAX. 11.3.96: As desired, the copies of assessee's reply have been transmitted through

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

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

Appeal is partly allowed

8. During pendency of the suit defendant no.1 died on 23.10.2008. As all legal representatives of defendant no.1 were already on record, he was deleted from array of parties. 9. In discharge of burden cast under issues, plaintiff no.1 was examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.9. In rebuttal, defendants examined two witnesses viz., defendant no.2

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s Indur Green Power Private Limited

In the result, all the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 2(15) of the Act?. 44. We are dealing with a taxing statute. The intention of the legislature in a taxation statute is to be gathered from the language of the provisions particularly where the language is plain and unambiguous. In a Taxing Act, it is not possible to assume any intention or the governing purpose

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

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 68 of the Act by order dated 26-09-2008. 8. Aggrieved, the assessee filed I.T.A.No.677/Vizag/2008 to the Income