Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Hycons Infrastructure (India) Ltd.

The appeals are dismissed

Section 5A (1) of the Act of 1944, is invested wit h the power to curtail the concessions by modified notifications, but nonetheles s such notifications should be in public interest. The Supreme Court, in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd (supra) has laid down that promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine and yielded when equity so requires. When

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Chirla Rama Reddy, Contract

Appeal is dismissed with costs

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice N.K.Sudhindrarao R.S.A.No.70/2007

Section 100 CPC is directed against the common judgment and decree dated 7-10-2006 passed in R.A.Nos.33 and 35 of 2002 by the District and Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court –II, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, wherein appeal filed by the plaintiff -K.T. Plantations Private Limited in RA 3 No.33/2002 came to be allowed

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

35 Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 413 of 2011 Appellant :- Suresh Kumar Sheetlani Respondent :- Income Tax Officer-1 (3) Counsel for Appellant :- Swapnil Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Income Tax,Manish Goyal Hon'ble Bharati Sapru,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J. [Per: Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.) 1. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income

Commissioner of Income tax-VI vs. M/s. Narpat Girji Constructions,

The appeal is allowed

35. Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that the transfer of the assets by the lease deed was not per se void but void against the liquidator as mentioned in Section 531A of the Companies Act. In support of his submission the learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the following judgments i. RM. NL. Ramaswami Chettiar

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

The appeal stands dismissed

35,60,000/- and purchaser M/s MEIPL was going to develop th land relating to 12 partners. Therefore, the land in pieces was brought by assessee company. It is not a case of the department that in lieu of cheques any cash was withdrawn from the bank and the same has been returned to the assessee. The general statement recorded

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Jayalakshmi Chits

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

35,000 19.2.92 187.00 21.1.92 142.00 Rs.7,50,000/­ Total LossRs.16,88,250/­ 8.2. The   Assessing   Officer   after   verification  found that the assessee had sold the shares  prior in point of time without involving any  broker, and thereafter, purchased the shares  through   brokers.   The   Assessing   Officer  noticed that shares of Mysore Cement were not  sold   at   the   prevailing   market   price

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S Gulf Oil Corporation Pvt. Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

35,000 19.2.92 187.00 21.1.92 142.00 Rs.7,50,000/­ Total LossRs.16,88,250/­ 8.2. The   Assessing   Officer   after   verification  found that the assessee had sold the shares  prior in point of time without involving any  broker, and thereafter, purchased the shares  through   brokers.   The   Assessing   Officer  noticed that shares of Mysore Cement were not  sold   at   the   prevailing   market   price

The Commissioner of Income Tax - VI vs. M/s. Manikanta Iron AND Hardware

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

35,000 19.2.92 187.00 21.1.92 142.00 Rs.7,50,000/­ Total LossRs.16,88,250/­ 8.2. The   Assessing   Officer   after   verification  found that the assessee had sold the shares  prior in point of time without involving any  broker, and thereafter, purchased the shares  through   brokers.   The   Assessing   Officer  noticed that shares of Mysore Cement were not  sold   at   the   prevailing   market   price

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [TDS] vs. M/s.KCIL-MEIL [JV]

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

bogus or such persons did not exist in such a circumstance the inference drawn by the intelligence officer appear to be unrealistic and bad in law". Over and above, we also concur with the finding of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) that no honest or a pain staking enquiry was done by the Intelligence Officer to ascertain whether the addressees shown

M/s Sri Surya Constructions vs. The Income Tax Officer

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

bogus. The same is a matter of trial regarding the authenticity of the documents. The Court only has to see whether there is a cause of action in favour of the plaintiff to continue with the suit. 20. Hence, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has clarified that while determining any application filed under Order VII Rule

M/S VAIBHAV vs. JOINT COMM. OF INCOME TAX RANGE 3 HYD

Appeal is allowed and the judgments and decrees passed by the

Bench: The Learned Trial Court) Was Allowed & The Judgment & Decree Dated 12.12.2000, Passed By Learned Senior Sub Judge, Kullu Was Set-Aside. (Parties Shall Hereinafter Be Referred To In

bogus, as she never paid the 14 consideration for the sale though she admitted the execution of the sale deed before the Registrar. Her story that she was ignorant of the nature of the transaction, it was held, cannot be accepted as she had admitted the execution of the sale deed before the Registrar. 11. A Division Bench of this