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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

65 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. 516 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 85/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE PROVINCIAL SUPERIOR CARMALAGIRI PROVINCIAL HOUSE, CMC CONGREGATION, ADIMALI P.O., IDUKKI

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

65 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. 516 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 85/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE PROVINCIAL SUPERIOR CARMALAGIRI PROVINCIAL HOUSE, CMC CONGREGATION, ADIMALI P.O., IDUKKI

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Smt G Sailaja

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

65 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. 516 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 85/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE PROVINCIAL SUPERIOR CARMALAGIRI PROVINCIAL HOUSE, CMC CONGREGATION, ADIMALI P.O., IDUKKI

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

65 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. 516 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 85/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE PROVINCIAL SUPERIOR CARMALAGIRI PROVINCIAL HOUSE, CMC CONGREGATION, ADIMALI P.O., IDUKKI

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

65 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. 516 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 85/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE PROVINCIAL SUPERIOR CARMALAGIRI PROVINCIAL HOUSE, CMC CONGREGATION, ADIMALI P.O., IDUKKI

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

65 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. 516 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 85/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE PROVINCIAL SUPERIOR CARMALAGIRI PROVINCIAL HOUSE, CMC CONGREGATION, ADIMALI P.O., IDUKKI

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. N. Annapurna

The appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

65 TTJ 1 and Fuji Bank Limited 121 Taxman 25 in which the penalty under Section 271C had been deleted in similar circumstances, there was no legal infirmity in the order of the CIT (A). Consequently, the appeals of the Department dismissed. 15. The Department filed appeals being

Commissioner of Income Tax-III, vs. M/s Sree Rayalaseema Green Energy Limited,

65,686/- and held this was the reasonable expenditure incurred to earn dividend income of Rs.3,95,439/-. In view of the facts noticed above, the contention of the revenue is rather far-fetched, if not perverse and illogical. 5. Calculation mistakes while applying Rule 8D were pointed out by the respondent-assessee, but these have not been adverted

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 173 of M.V. Act, aggrieved by the Decree and Judgment dated 09.11.2015 in MVOP No.51/2013 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum District Judge, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. Between: 1. Rudraraju Rukmini, W/o.late Sri Venkatalakshmi Narasimha Raju, Hindu, Occ: Housewife, R/o.Vuyyurivari Meraka, Near Antarvedipalem, Sakhinetipalli - 533 251, East Godavari District. 2. Pericherla Lakshmi

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, vs. M/s. Prasad Film Laboratories Ltd.,

Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenges the award dated 19th December, 2011 passed by the Learned Sole Arbitrator. 2. The Petitioner – Food Corporation of India (hereinafter, ‘FCI’) and M/s Shankar Rice and General Mills (hereinafter ‘miller’) had entered into two milling agreements dated 8th November, 1994 and 15th November, 1994. Under the said contracts, the miller

The Commissioner of Income Tax -III vs. Sri T.C. Reddy

The appeal stands dismissed

65,000/- and Sh. Surendra Kedia at Rs.1,45,000/-. The assessee was asked to file the justification of these expenses as these are payments to related parties u/s 40(a)(2)(b). vide reply dated 30.12.2009, the assessee has filed bills of these persons. These bills show that sales commission against sales of plot have been paid