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

The appeals are dismissed

undisclosed income of the Company. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ITA Nos.547/2013 & other connected matters Page 12 of 13 16. In this analysis, a distillation of the precedents yields the following propositions of law in the context of Section 68

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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

undisclosed income. The First Appellate Authority took note of the fact that the remittance received by the assessee from Dr.K.P.Ali through the Federal Bank had been confirmed by the bank. The details of the clinics and business concerns, from which source amounts were remitted to India, was furnished ITA.No.283 of 2010 6 to the Assessing Officer by Dr.K.P.Ali, along

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

undisclosed income of the assessee. We find from this order that no reference to Section 68 of the Act or discussion

PENDURTHI CHANDRASEKHAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The appeal is allowed and all the four substantial

68 of the Income Tax Act, is right in law in holding that there should be sufficient reasons for receiving gifts though it is from father-in-law and the gift is covered by the provisions of Section 56 of the Act? 2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

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

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

undisclosed income of the block period, the provisions of Sections 68, 69, 694, 698 and 69C of the Act will

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

income from undisclosed sources. 12. The assessee preferred an appeal and contended that notice under Section 148 of the Act issued by the A.C.I.T., Circle -1, Agra as also the I.T.O.-1(1), Agra was never served on him and the addition made under Section 68

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

undisclosed income for the period 1.4.1990 to 14.2.2001. Apparently, during the course of the proceedings having regard to the complexity of accounts, special audit under Section 142 (2) (A) of the Income Tax Act were also ordered. Though, this Court is not directly concern with details of those facts, yet to the extent it is relevant is worth noticing that

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 was a money

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Jyothi Wines,

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

68, proposing addition of unexplained credits; but eventually the additions were made under Section 69 as undisclosed investments. There was a further addition made of Rs.7,48,750/-, which was a cheque payment made by one of the assessee- firms to T.S.Asok, one of its partners, which was said to be refund of advance paid on a property. The same

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), Hvderabad

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 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, along with

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s.ZENOTECH LABORATORIES LIMITED

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

68 of the Act is warranted. 15. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.” 4. Further, the conclusion reached in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kabul Chawla, (2016) 380 ITR 573 was summarized in PCIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia, (2017) 82 taxmann.com 287 Del. The relevant portion of the judgment passed

PENDURTHI CHANDRASEKHAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

Bench: J. UMA DEVI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

section 68 of the Act, is right in law in holding that genuineness of the transaction is not proved in spite of substantial evidence on record? II) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse and without application of mind in confirming the addition of Rs.1

THE COMMISSIONER OF IT IV vs. M/S. OCEAN SPARKLES LIMITED

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

undisclosed investment in Lamorghini Car? 2. Whether the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is not perverse in the facts and circumstances of the case?” 4. The relevant facts necessary to address the aforesaid controversy are briefly stated as under:- 4.1 The Assessee is a promoter of a public company – JCT Ltd. (hereafter referred as ‘JCT’) which belongs

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri Byru Venkateswarlu

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

undisclosed sources.” 4. Counsel for the appellant has further contended that the CIT(A) while considered the case of the assessee has observed as under: “As regards the unproven purchases and sales with R.S. Corporation and Sunrise Jewellers, it was stated that these were existing concerns and the AO had not taken into consideration the fact that Shri Ram Gopal

Sunil Kumar Ahuja vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

68,34 appeal befor who vide his assessee file dated 23.09.2 3. incorrect in assessee, wh the assessee. Section 153A search. The i that proceedi found during 4. has relied on Meeta Gutgu challenge bef 5. that additions additions had Private Limi which had m purchase of l ultimate bene o. 97 of 2023 er Section 153A

THE COMMISSIONER OF I.T.-I, HYDERABAD. vs. M/S. AKASH CABLE TV NETWORK PVT.LTD., HYDERABAD.

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

section 68 of the Act and thus the onus to prove the contrary was on the revenue. In support of the above contention, the assessee has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (supra) 18. On the issue of resting of onus, the contention of revenue is that

The Commissioner of Income Tax - II vs. Shri Surender Kumar

The appeals stand dismissed as not pressed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68) D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 114/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I VS. JITENDRA KUMAR NIGAM. WITH (69) D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 189/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I VS. SHRI RAKESH R. PUROHIT. WITH (70) D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 190/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I VS. RAKESH R. PUROHIT. WITH (71) D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 265/2010 COMMISSIONER