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

unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Act. As such, the impugned Orders are just and proper and the appeal

PENDURTHI CHANDRASEKHAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The appeal is allowed and all the four substantial

unexplained cash credit under Section 68. 8. Similarly, the Assessing Officer added interest income as per the TDS Certificate, to the Income

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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

unexplained cash credit, deleted. The assessee is the Managing Partner of Chandragiri Construction, Kasaragode. The assessee had filed return of income for the assessment year 2004-05, showing a total income of Rs.11,14,080/- and agricultural income of Rs.12,44,850/-. On receipt of notice issued under Section 143(2), the assessee appeared and filed cash flow statement

The Commisioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s. Hyderabad House Pvt. Ltd.,

unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act for the A.Y. under consideration. As regards capital accounts of partners

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

The appeal is dismissed

unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act and added the income returned by the assessee. Aggrieved by this

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri Byru Venkateswarlu

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

section 68 permitting the assessing officer to treat unexplained cash credit as income are enabling provisions for making certain additions

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 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

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

cash credit is liable to be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of the previous year. As concurrently found by all the fora below including the A.O., a number of opportunities were given to the assessee to substantiate its stand that the amount was collected towards allotment of shares to third parties. Except submitting a list

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

unexplained cash credit - added back by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT to the tune of Rs.6,84,22,895/-. 4. It is urged that so far as the addition of Rs.22 lakhs goes, the Assessing Officer and the higher authorities fell into error in relying solely on the testimony and deposition of one Vineet Bhargava who stated

THE COMMISSIONER OCF INCOME TAX-I vs. M/S.BHARAT BIOTECH INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

Bench: :

unexplained cash credit U/s.68 of the I.T. Act in a situation involving absence of the identity of the creditors genuineness and creditworthiness of the entire transactions by not appreciating the judicial principles laid down in the matter of Balgopal Merchants [P] Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (2024) 162 taxmann.com 465 (Cal) ?” We have heard Mr. Aryak Dutt, learned

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

cash balance and found that a and brought to tax as "Income from other sources". Assessing credit. \When explanation was sought for and obtained, the same -t difference of Rs. 1,87,718.00 could not be explained satisfactorily by the assessee. Accordingly, the same was added to the income of the assessee under Section 68 of the Act as "Income

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

Section 27 begins with a proviso and states that when any fact is deposed to as discovered, in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved, 49 whether it amounts to a confession