Commissioner of Income Tax [TDS] vs. Sri VAraha Laxmi Nrusimha Swamy DEvastanam

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

50 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943 WA NO. 498 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 846/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE MOTHER SUPERIOR ASSUMPTION SISTERS, ARUNAPURAM P.O., PALA

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Swapna Lahari Pvt Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

50 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943 WA NO. 498 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 846/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE MOTHER SUPERIOR ASSUMPTION SISTERS, ARUNAPURAM P.O., PALA

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Smt G Sailaja

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

50 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943 WA NO. 498 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 846/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE MOTHER SUPERIOR ASSUMPTION SISTERS, ARUNAPURAM P.O., PALA

Commissioner of Income TAx-II, Hyderabad vs. M/s. Sri Balaji Bio MAss Power Pvt. Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

50 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943 WA NO. 498 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 846/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE MOTHER SUPERIOR ASSUMPTION SISTERS, ARUNAPURAM P.O., PALA

The Commissioner of Income Tax -1 vs. Harmahendar Singh Bagga

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

50 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943 WA NO. 498 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 846/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE MOTHER SUPERIOR ASSUMPTION SISTERS, ARUNAPURAM P.O., PALA

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. The Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

50 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943 WA NO. 498 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 846/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE MOTHER SUPERIOR ASSUMPTION SISTERS, ARUNAPURAM P.O., PALA

M/s.V.R.Farms Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

TDS 4,26,357 4,26,357 Less Advance Tax -- -- 24,19,743 18,71,668 Add: Interest u/s 234B 2,31,376 1,64,666 Add: Interest u/s 234C 1,52,748 1,18,149 Tax + interest payable 28,03,867 21,54,483 Less: MAT credit 5,48,075 -- Total Tax + interest liability

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.A.Venkateswarlu AND Co

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

50,000 which was payable to the respondent, therefore, it was the statutory duty of the petitioner to deduct the income tax by way of TDS under section

Late Smt. Hoorjahan Begum vs. Tghe Income Tax Officer

Appeal stands disposed off

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,S.RAVI KUMAR

50,241/- p.m. as per Ex. PW2/2. The form 16 A of Late Sh. Vijit Sharma is Ex. PW2/3 (Colly) 5 sheets. The Appointment Letter is Ex. PW2/4 (Colly) 4 sheets. Late Vijit Sharma was our permanent employee and he was very good employee. His performance was excellent. Our company used to give salary increment annually and sometimes before

COMMR OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/S JAPSON ESTATES PVT LTD., HYDERABAD

The appeal is allowed;

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

50,48,098/- under Section 156 of the Act was issued. Questioning the same, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Bengaluru. The appeal stood dismissed under order dated 15.12.2014. Against which, appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ‘A’ Bench, Bangalore (for short ‘ITAT’) were filed in appeal IT(IT)A Nos.11 to 13/Bang/2015

PENDURTHI CHANDRASEKHAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The appeal is allowed and all the four substantial

Section 68. 8. Similarly, the Assessing Officer added interest income as per the TDS Certificate, to the Income Tax return. 9. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) granted relief in so far as the unsecured loan received by the assessee from Smt. Shanti Chowdary, who was none else than the wife of the assessee. This was on the basis

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - Central vs. Smt. Gavireddygari Aparna Kalyani

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

50 O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 127/2023 Page 3 of 4 week from today. C. The parties may make an effort to resolve the disputes with regard to the difference in their computation of arrears of license fee, and also with regard to the question of TDS deducted by the petitioner. D. If they are not able to reconcile these disputes within

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/s. Kura Homes Pvt. Ltd.,

Appeal stands allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 166 of the M.V. Act. Learned Tribunal, on perusal of the documents brought on record and after hearing counsel for the parties and upon going through the written statement as well as other documents, framed following issues for proper and just adjudication of the case:- i) Whether this claim case is maintainable in the present form

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Shri Chidipotu Sridhar,

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as follows;

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,SURESH KUMAR KAIT

Section 44 (a) (d) of Income Tax Act, 8% of the turnover would be treated as income, if the annual turnover is below Rs.60 lakhs. 8) Rs. 1,77,022/- is the TDS for the assessment year 2011-2012. 9) Rs.5,39,685/- is TDS for the assessment year 2012-2013. 10) After the death of the deceased, his family

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Hyderabad. vs. M/s.Trinity Advanced Software Labs (P) Ltd.,

The appeal is disposed of in

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde Regular First Appeal No. 179 Of 2013 (Dec/Pos) Between:

SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE: The parties hereby submit that with the intervention of the family members, well wishers and friends the above appeal has been compromised between the parties under the following terms and conditions. 1. The appellants in the above appeal are the defendants and the respondents is the plaintiff in the suit filed before

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s Polisetty Somasundaram,

50,000/- received by the company was furnished. Hence, in the absence of records the same was treated as unexplained share application money and the same was added to the declared total income. (3) Addition of Rs.1,45,57,286/- was made as the assessee failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness of the parties from whom the alleged loans were

Director of Income Tax ( International Taxation) vs. M/s. JDH International LLC,

Appeal is partly allowed with certain modification and the multiplier is reduced from 11

Bench: The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court Date Of Reserved 25.10.2025 Date Of Pronounced 06.01.2026 Coram The Hon'Ble Ms.Justice R.Poornima Cma(Md)No.573 Of 2013 & Mp(Md)No.1 Of 2013 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., South Main Veedhi, Thanjavur Town & Munsif, By Its Branch Manager : Appellant/2Nd Respondent Vs. 1.V.Veluthai 2.N.Sivakumar 3.N.Rajakumar : Respondents 1 To 3/Petitioners 4.Senthilkumar : 4Th Respondent/R1 Prayer:-Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Is Filed Under Section 173 Of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Against The Award Dated 08/08/2002 & Made In Mcop No.518 Of 2002 On The File Of The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Ftc-1, Thanjavur. For Appellant : Mr.E.Chandrasekaran For R1 To R3 : Mr.R.Giridharan (No Appearance) 1/12 Https://Www.Mhc.Tn.Gov.In/Judis

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 08/08/2002 and made in MCOP No.518 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, FTC-1, Thanjavur. For Appellant : Mr.E.Chandrasekaran For R1 to R3 : Mr.R.Giridharan (No appearance) 1/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD)No.573

The Commissioner of Income Tax- I vs. M/s. Avon Organics Limited

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

50 18 Filing charges 1000 19 Computer maintenance 2740 20 Pantry Charges 170485 21 Printer Cartridge 22800 22 Office Maintenance 23724 23 Transportation charges 628284 24 Stationery 18375 25 Lease Line Charges 274331 26 Telephone Expenses 68182 27. Printing Charges 7350 28. Travelling Expenses International 7732 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Expenses pertaining to April & May 04 5902448/- ” This break-up was noticed