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

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

investments under Section 69. Notice was initially issued under Section 68, proposing addition of unexplained credits; but eventually the additions

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

unexplained. Thereafter, in his appeals against the aforesaid additions, as well as in respect of AY 2007-08, the assessee produced the following additional documents under Section 46 of the IT Rules:- “(i) Attested copy of Certificate of Incorporation of M/s Russian Technology Centre Holding Ltd. (ii) Attested copy of Certificate of Incumbency of M/s Russian Technology Centre Holding

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

The appeals are dismissed

unexplained. Thereafter, in his appeals against the aforesaid additions, as well as in respect of AY 2007-08, the assessee produced the following additional documents under Section 46 of the IT Rules:- “(i) Attested copy of Certificate of Incorporation of M/s Russian Technology Centre Holding Ltd. (ii) Attested copy of Certificate of Incumbency of M/s Russian Technology Centre Holding

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

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

unexplained investment. 4.6 The Assessee preferred an appeal against the assessment order before the CIT(A). 4.7 Before the CIT(A), the Assessee sought to produce further documents and filed an application under Rule 46A for production of additional evidence, which included an invoice in favour of M/s History Logistics; copy of the letter of credit issued by the Oriental

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.Sri Krishna Drugs Limited

In the result this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act for short) on account of share application money. It is apparent that there was substantial addition of Rs.81,40,000/- for similar reasons in the Assessment Year 2006-07 (see the impugned order ofthe tribunal dated 2"^ March, 2012, which relates to Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08). Suffice

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

Section 68 of the Act or discussion thereon has been undertaken. Though the Supreme Court has dismissed the civil appeal filed against the said order, no ratio as     CVNR, J. & MSKJ, J.  itta_137_2005        9  such has been laid down therein. In LANCO Industries Limited (2nd supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that if the ostensible shareholders

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri Byru Venkateswarlu

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

investment in the alleged unproved purchases represented assessee’s own income from undisclosed sources. Such purchases amount of Rs.1,06,717/- represents assessee’s income from 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

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

SRI PAVAN KUMAR AGARWAL vs. DY. CIT, NIZAMABAD.

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 260 ( A) of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 aggrieved by the order dated 27-06-2005 in l.T A. No. 686/ Hyd/2000 (A.Y.1996-S7) on the file of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench "A" Hyderabad preferred against the order of the commissioner of lncome tax (Appeals-ll) Hyderabad, dated 09-06- 2000 in Appeal No.13/AC.NZB/ClT(A) ll/1999

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

Commissioner of Income Tax-i, vs. Agricultural Market Committee

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar

68,000 9 Loan received from brother `3,25,000 10 Proceeds of NSC `86,500 11 Agriculture income `1,22,000 12 Customary gifts `2,04,000 Total Income ` 22,33,819.00 22,33,819.00 22,33,819.00 22,33,819.00 7. Sri. Nagendra Naik, learned counsel for the accused argued that the investigating officer did not account