COMMR.OF I.T. RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/S.NARAYANA CHOWDARYAND ORS KAKINADA

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

Capital Gains Tax and that the defendants are trying to take advantage of these documents for effecting fraudulent transfers- The ,Trial Court concluded that considerationdidnotpassundertheDevelopmentAgreementsandthat the Development Agreements were hence proved to be sham documents' TheTrialCourtalsoconcludedthatthesuitpropertieswereleasedorrtto i third parties under the registered Sale Deeds and that mesne profits cannot be granted to the plaintiffs pending demarcation of the shares

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - (TDS), vs. M/s. Suman Chit Funds (P) Ltd.,

Capital Gains Tax and that the defendants are trying to take advantage of these documents for effecting fraudulent transfers- The ,Trial Court concluded that considerationdidnotpassundertheDevelopmentAgreementsandthat the Development Agreements were hence proved to be sham documents' TheTrialCourtalsoconcludedthatthesuitpropertieswereleasedorrtto i third parties under the registered Sale Deeds and that mesne profits cannot be granted to the plaintiffs pending demarcation of the shares

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX vs. M/S V.SATAYANARAYANA

The appeal is allowed

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

127-28) : Graver the crime, greater should be the standard of proof. An accused may appear to be guilty on the basis of suspicion but that cannot amount to legal proof. When on the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in the favour of the prosecution and the other benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Shri Raaj Kumar Jain

Capital) Appeal No. 1475 of 2009 corresponding to Reference No. 3 of 2009, by a co-ordinate bench of this Court on 11th September, 2009. The judgment of this Court in 'XYZ' has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. (s). 2227 of 2010, decided on 15.2.2011, with summary dismissal of appeal. 15. Separate and distinct trials

PR COMMR OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. K RAVINDER REDDY, HYDERABAD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

section. Nonetheless, as an overall matter, GE is correct that in some instances, ITAT‟s characterization of certain conversations appears to overstate the importance of the activities in India (for e.g. e- mail chain on Reliance-GT Exhaust Height; e-mail chain on confirmation of RIL PO No. DG8/3389741). Nevertheless, in many other instances, ITAT‟s decision is sound

M/s. Canara Securities Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO,T.AMARNATH GOUD

Section 178 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the Chairman of the company, HVL cannot arrogate unto himself the power to cause such appointment when such power ultimately rests with the Board of Directors. The observation of the two Joint APLs that the evident performance of BCrL, the flagship company of MP Birla Group is deteriorating ever since, HVL became

M/s Durga Granites, vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1,

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

127 of 2023 ----- Utpal Kumar Sen, aged about 36 years, Son of Ravindranath Sen, resident of Village Kundhit, P.O. Kundhit, P.S. Kundhit, District- Jamtara (Jharkhand). ..........Petitioner. -Versus- 2025:JHHC:29619-DB 77 1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Secretary, Department of Industries, Mines and Geology, having its office at Yojna Bhawan, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi