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

The appeals are dismissed

bogus purchase to maximize payment of duty in cash. In fact, when other units in the country avails CENVAT Credit o f say 68% of total duty (32% in PLA), there cannot be any plausible reasons to a vail credit to say 24% (76% in PLA) by units in these areas. This analysis clear ly brings out a fact that

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

Sections 73, 74 and 75 49 of the Indian Registration Act, indicate the formalities. 49. When the execution is denied by the seller after completing formalities of execution, the Sub- Registrar would get authority to admit the execution. The purchaser has a right to present the document for compulsory registration. In this case, it was not the case of refusing

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

50,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% as alleged? OPP. 7 8. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 9. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD. 10. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction

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

The appeal is allowed

purchase the same. The said application has been dismissed by this Court on 30th September 2008. Being aggrieved by the same, OSA 27/2008 was filed by the applicant-society and the same was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 28th January 2009 observing as under: “Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere

The Commissioner of Income -Tax - III, vs. Shri Taher Ali

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

bogus complaint dated 12.10.1990 to B.M.C. authorities as defendant no.2 had filed affidavit dated 10.9.1990 in favour of one of the tenants, Smt. Vasanti B. Palan in Suit (ST) 647 of 1990. Defendant no.2, by his Advocates' letter dated 28.10.1990 had placed various facts on record. On 8.11.1990, B.M.C. authorities issued notice under section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation