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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

195 of 2008 is filed against  the   order   passed   in   ITA   No.   631/AHD/1997  filed  by  the  revenue   in case   of late   Shri  Vijaykumar Gupta. 5.Tax Appeal No. 196 of 2008 is filed against  the   order   passed   in   ITA   No.   671/AHD/1997  filed by late Shri Vijaykumar Gupta. 6.Tax Appeal No. 211 of 2008 is filed against  the order passed

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

195 of 2008 is filed against  the   order   passed   in   ITA   No.   631/AHD/1997  filed  by  the  revenue   in case   of late   Shri  Vijaykumar Gupta. 5.Tax Appeal No. 196 of 2008 is filed against  the   order   passed   in   ITA   No.   671/AHD/1997  filed by late Shri Vijaykumar Gupta. 6.Tax Appeal No. 211 of 2008 is filed against  the order passed

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions0 vs. Kalinga Cultural Trust

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

1 to the said Section except in respect of capital gains and share premium amount is not a capital gain earned. It is urged that since, the tribunal has failed to determine the core issue with regard to colorable devise adopted by the 15 assessee, to evade tax, therefore, the matter be remitted to the tribunal for decision afresh

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5 vs. M/s. VBC Industries Limited

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1 to the said Section except in respect of capital gains and share premium amount is not a capital gain earned. It is urged that since, the tribunal has failed to determine the core issue with regard to colorable devise adopted by the 15 assessee, to evade tax, therefore, the matter be remitted to the tribunal for decision afresh

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

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

1 and 2 companies and certain other individuals as Directors of 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

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

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

1. 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 (Jharkhand), PIN 834 002. 2. The Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Jharkhand Mantralaya (Project Building), PO. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand), 3. The Director, Mines