PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GALI JANARDHANA REDDY

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

144 read with Section 153D on similar ground that no satisfaction note was recorded by the assessing officer of the searched persons which is factually not applicable to the proceedings for the year under consideration. 4. Being aggrieved with the decision of the Tribunal, the Revenue filed a miscellaneous petition before the Tribunal for modification of its order to that

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

144 read with Section 153D on similar ground that no satisfaction note was recorded by the assessing officer of the searched persons which is factually not applicable to the proceedings for the year under consideration. 4. Being aggrieved with the decision of the Tribunal, the Revenue filed a miscellaneous petition before the Tribunal for modification of its order to that

JAGDISH SOLANKI ,JHABUA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER JHABUA, JHABUA

Appeal is dismissed

144 & 144B of Income-tax Act, 1961 [\"the Act\"] for Assessment-Year [“AY\"] 2017-18, the assessee has filed this appeal.\n2. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee-individual did not file any return of income u/s 139 of the Act. The\nPage 1 of 23\nITA No. 169/Ind/2025 – AY 2017-18\nAO, based

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2), ALLAHABAD vs. MONAD INFRASOLUTION LIMITED, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose and the Cross-objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2015-16 Income Tax Officer, V. Monad Infrasolution Limited, Ward-2(2), Allahabad C-80 Gtb Nagar Kareli, Allahabad, 211016 U.P. Pan-Aajcm2155J (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 01/Alld/2021 In Assessment Year: 2015-16 Monad Infrasolution Limited, V. Income Tax Officer, C-80 Gtb Nagar Kareli, Ward-2(2), Allahabad Allahabad, 211016 U.P. Pan-Aajcm2155J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144 of the Income Tax Act whereby, the AO made three additions on account (i) Current liabilities, (ii) Commission expenses and (iii) Consultancy fees. Accordingly, the AO assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 25,40,01,710/- as against the return of income of ITA No. 62/ALLD/2020 and C.O. No. 01/ALLD/2021 (arising

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DODDI ROOPA, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.413/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Smt. Doddi Roopa, Income Tax, Visakhapatnam. Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam. Pan: Atfpr7237N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement:

TDS) on the payments made to M/s. A.K. Capital Enterprises, as against the purchases made during the year under consideration. Accordingly, the AO, based on his conviction that 4 DCIT vs. Smt. Doddi Roopa the assessee has failed to justify the purchases of Rs. 4,99,65,247/-, passed an order under section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 29/03/2023