Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Smt G Sailaja

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

56 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. 509 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 535/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE PROVINCIAL SUPERIOR SISTERS OF THE CROSS OF CHAVANOD, PULIYANAM

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

56 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. 509 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 535/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE PROVINCIAL SUPERIOR SISTERS OF THE CROSS OF CHAVANOD, PULIYANAM

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

56 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. 509 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 535/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE PROVINCIAL SUPERIOR SISTERS OF THE CROSS OF CHAVANOD, PULIYANAM

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

56 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. 509 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 535/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE PROVINCIAL SUPERIOR SISTERS OF THE CROSS OF CHAVANOD, PULIYANAM

PENDURTHI CHANDRASEKHAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The appeal is allowed and all the four substantial

Section 56 of the Act? 2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the conclusion of the Assessing Officer and the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that undisclosed income has been brought in the form of gifts in spite of the fact that there

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, vs. M/s. Celestial Laboratories Limited,

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

TDS as prescribed under Section 194J has been upheld by the Bombay as well as Delhi High Court except to the extent of penalty as prescribed under Section 271C. It is also argued that the person referred to in Section 194J and Explanation (a) appended to Section 194J(1) need not himself / herself is to be a Doctor and therefore

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

56. The AO, however, did not agree and disallowed Rs.41,84,947 as being in excess and unreasonable and valued back for the income of Assessee. In appeal, the CIT(A) reversed the AO on the ground that it is not for the AO to determine the reasonableness or otherwise of the expenditure. In the further appeal by the Revenue

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

56. The AO, however, did not agree and disallowed Rs.41,84,947 as being in excess and unreasonable and valued back for the income of Assessee. In appeal, the CIT(A) reversed the AO on the ground that it is not for the AO to determine the reasonableness or otherwise of the expenditure. In the further appeal by the Revenue

Late Smt. Hoorjahan Begum vs. Tghe Income Tax Officer

Appeal stands disposed off

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,S.RAVI KUMAR

Section 192(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has deducted the tax at source from the employee's salary. In case if an objection is raised by any party, the objector is required to prove by producing evidence such as LPC to suggest that the employer failed to deduct the TDS from the salary of the employee. However, there

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

2 to pay the said award amount jointly and severally together with interest @ 9% per annum. 8.Aggrieved over the order of the Tribunal, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant Insurance Company, disputing the manner of accident and their liability to pay the compensation. 4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD)No.573 of 2013 9.It is further contended