Sri Natakari Gopal vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and 2 Others

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 3Rd January, 2023. Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mita, Adv. ..For Appellant Mr. Pranit Bag , Adv. Mr. A. K. Mishra, Adv. Mr. Debdatta Saha, Adv. …For Respondent Re: Ga/1/2022 The Court:- Heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, Learned Advocate For The Appellant & Mr. Pranit Bag, Learned Advocate For The Respondent. There Is A Delay Of 1126 Days In Filing The Appeal. Though The Reasons Given In The Affidavit Are Not Convincing The Issues Involved In The Appeal Had Been Decided By This Court In Earlier Matters, This Court Exercises Discretion & Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal. Accordingly, The Application Is Allowed.

section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] is directed against the order dated 15.2.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A[SMC]” Bench in ITA No.1018/Kol/2018 for the assessment year 2015-16 the revenue has raised the following substantial question of law for consideration : 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Laila Impex,

Accordingly answered against the Revenue. The appeals fail and are dismissed, without

Capital gains") for— (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property ; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/S.B.KRISHNA MURTHY KAKINADA AND 2 ORS

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

4. It is understood that the deductions in respect of the head office expenses as referred to in paragraph (3) of Article III of the Agreement shall in no case be less than what are allowable under the Indian Income-tax Act as on the date of entry into force of this Protocol. 5. It is understood that the taxation

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

Section 27 begins with a proviso and states that when any fact is deposed to as discovered, in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved, 49 whether it amounts to a confession

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

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

4 listed companies, 3 subsidiaries of one listed company and an unlisted company is bad in law since the Joint APLs merely represents the estate of PDB and thus, had no rights to seek appointment of Directors in companies in which PDB was not a "Member". Further, without prejudice, it is submitted that such appointment of Directors cannot be made

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.Kakinada Co-operative Town Bank Limited

Appeals stands disposed of in the

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

4. The matter was carried in appeal by the respondent before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (for short,'CIT(A)') who upheld the findings of the AO and rejected claim of the assessee. 5. Both, the Revenue as well as assessee filed cross appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in so far as the assessee's appeal is concerned

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M.Venkata Krishna Mohan

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 143(3) of the Act and the income of the appellant was determined at Rs.84,95,035/-. The assessing Officer (hereinafter „AO‟) came to the conclusion that since the payment of Rs.1 Crore was absent in the earlier license agreement and it was for use of the brand, the expenditure of Rs.1 Crore cannot be related to the business

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Hyderabad House Pvt Ltd.,

capitalizing it with the multiplier of 14 on the basis of age of the claimant mother (44 years old) in view of dicta in Amrit Bhanu Shali & Ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 11 SCC 738. 14. The claimants by their appeal (MAC appeal No. 881/2015) submit that the non-pecuniary heads of damages have not been property taken

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

4. Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj, having its office at District Collectorate, Sahibganj, P.O. and P.S. Sahibganj, District Sahibganj, PIN 816109. 5. District Mining Officer, Sahibganj, having its office at District Collectorate, Sahibganj, P.O. and P.S. Sahibganj, District Sahibganj, PIN 816109. ........... Respondents. ----- With W.P.(C) No. 5076 of 2022 ----- Abhay Shankar Singh, aged about 34 years, son of Gajendra Pratap Singh, resident