THEE COMMSSR.OF INCOME TAX.HYD. vs. CHALLA SHANKER REDDY.HYD.

Bench: L.NARASIMHA REDDY,T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

123. In view ol t)-r: analysis and discussion in the foregoinSr paragraphs of this judgrne n -. this court holds that the Trial c.rrrt came to unimpeachable cor clusions which would not justi$r any rnter ference. 54 124. Insofar as the judgment dated 28.O3.2013 in O.S.No. 115, of 2006 (impugned in the Partition Appeal) is concerned, the Trial

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

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

123. In view ol t)-r: analysis and discussion in the foregoinSr paragraphs of this judgrne n -. this court holds that the Trial c.rrrt came to unimpeachable cor clusions which would not justi$r any rnter ference. 54 124. Insofar as the judgment dated 28.O3.2013 in O.S.No. 115, of 2006 (impugned in the Partition Appeal) is concerned, the Trial

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

123. In view ol t)-r: analysis and discussion in the foregoinSr paragraphs of this judgrne n -. this court holds that the Trial c.rrrt came to unimpeachable cor clusions which would not justi$r any rnter ference. 54 124. Insofar as the judgment dated 28.O3.2013 in O.S.No. 115, of 2006 (impugned in the Partition Appeal) is concerned, the Trial

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

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

properties as alleged. It is submitted that similar submissions were made by HVL before the Joint APLs which is evidenced by the Minutes of the meeting dated 21st July, 2017, similar stand was taken in his affidavit-in-opposition to the administrator's proceedings filed by the respondents in 2008 which culminated in judgment of the Division Bench dated 23rd

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s Indur Green Power Private Limited

In the result, all the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

property, credits and liabilities of the Company; and, subject to any reasonable restrictions as to the time and manner of inspecting the same that may be imposed in accordance with the regulations of the Company for the time being in force, the accounts shall be open to the inspection of the members. Once at least in every year, the accounts

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

Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused has denied his implication in the case/offence and has claimed that he was tortured and that his nails were extracted, his genitals were burnt and petrol was put in his anus. He offered to get himself medically examined to prove his allegations. The accused SK also claimed that he was extended other tortures and the C.B.I

Commissioner of Income Tax - II vs. M/s. Inforaise Technologies Pvt. Ltd.,

property or money to be other than that of a religious endowment or specific endowment, as the case may be.” The argument of the learned counsel so far as the power of the State or its authorities with respect to monitoring certain affairs of the temple cannot be denied, however, the question which begs consideration is whether, in the first

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. K. V. Srinivasa Rao

Section 145 of the Evidence Act. If a contradiction is put to the witness and it is denied by him, then his attention has to be drawn to the statement made by such witness before the Police or any other previous statement and he must be given a reasonable opportunity to explain as to why such contradiction appears

THE COMM. OF INCOME TAX RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/S B.KRISHNA MURTHY AND OTHERS

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

property is a proved circumstance. 37. Finger prints of accused Vibhore @ lavi was found in the car is not a proved circumstance. 38. Digital Diary of accused Ravi Prakash and accused Deepak Dass found in the car is not a proved circumstance. 39. Accused Vibhore @lavi got filled petrol in this car from Highway Service Centre is not a proved

The Commissioner of Income-Tax - VI, vs. Shri Mekala Bal Reddy

properties to the place of incident. Further, P.W-2 stated that he reached at the place of the incident at about 12.30 a.m. Devendra and other accused were not sitting in their 'Gher' rather they were sitting on the road on Cots having Hukka. They were sitting in front of their 'Gher' on the North side, on the road

M/s. Kausalya Shelters Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

house generator". 86. He further submitted that the Tribunal by relying upon the said Clause adjusted the expenses incurred by the respondent, the rent till the date of actual handing over of the possession and the security deposit lying with the respondent. Even after adjustment, an amount of ₹5,69,609/- was still due and payable, which was added

The Pr. Commissioner of Income tax (Central), vs. Sri Vaishnavi Educational Society,

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.51929/2014 C/W W.P.Nos.42063/2012, 30494/2013, 42671/2013, 638/2014, 797/2014, 1089/2014, 3211/2014, 3389/2014, 6180/2014, 10356/2014, 12014/2014, 12015/2014, 13043/2014, 13045/2014, 13206/2014, 13207/2014, 13398/2014, 13774/2014, 14149/2014, 14161/2014, 14494/2014, 14502/2014, 14521/2014, 14689/2014, 16646/2014, 17051/2014, 17594/2014, 19729/2014, 21158/2014, 23897/2014, 28861/2014, 30731/2014, 31723/2014, 33774/2014, 33777/2014, 34084/2014, 34259/2014, 34272/2014, 34391/2014, 35204/2014, 35243/2014, 35247/2014, 35305/2014, 35609/2014, 36164/2014, 36166/2014, 36489/2014, 36525/2014, 36971/2014, 37446/2014, 38055/2014, 38463/2014, 38471/2014, 38472/2014, 38661/2014, 38753/2014, 39383/2014, 39633/2014, 39832/2014, 40204/2014, 40379/2014, 41394/2014, 41422/2014, 41427/2014, 41428/2014, 41858/2014, 43815/2014, 43963/2014, 44306/2014, 44527/2014, 44742/2014, 44835/2014, 45486/2014, 46766/2014, 47103/2014, 47105/2014, 47106/2014, 47107/2014, 47608/2014, 47731/2014, 47821/2014, 47860/2014, 47913/2014, 48577/2014, 48880/2014, 49567/2014, 50260/2014, 50533/2014, 51294/2014, 51930/2014, 51931/2014, 51932/2014, 52760/2014, 53854/2014, 54059/2014, 54083/2014, 54236/2014

HOUSING AND URBAN DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE 560001 BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARAPARK WEST BANGALORE 20 R/P BY ITS COMMISSIONER 117 3. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARAPARK WEST BANGALORE 20 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.V. SHASHIKUMAR, AGA FOR R1) THIS W.P. IS FILED

M/S.A.G.BIOTECH LABORATORIES [INDIA] LTD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

section 10 of the t('. 4.3 Applrcability: This amendment has been made a) tlicable with effect from 1" Aprtl, 2009 and shall according t apply for assessment year 2009- 1O and subsequent assessment ears." 2L. It would also be relevant to take note of a fe\, judgments on the subject matter. Firstly, the Madras High CoLrrt in the case

Dr.D. Siva Sankara Rao-HUF vs. I.T.O. Ward-2, Eluru

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 4 of the LA Act. 19.4.1 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 submits that so far as concerns the testimony of PW-3, Mr. Vinod Kumar (purchaser of land), the same is to be rejected as PW-3 himself admits that he was not an income tax payee in 1988 nor did he inform about purchasing

P.V.S.Raju vs. The Addl. C.I.T.

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

Section 4 of the LA Act. 19.4.1 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 submits that so far as concerns the testimony of PW-3, Mr. Vinod Kumar (purchaser of land), the same is to be rejected as PW-3 himself admits that he was not an income tax payee in 1988 nor did he inform about purchasing

Pinna Nageswara RAo, vs. Commissioner of Income tax, IV (A.P)

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires

PRL COMMR OF INCOME TAX-7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S SRI VENKATESWARA PADMAVATHI COMPAY, KHAMMAM DIST

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires

Kuchipudi Krishna Kishore vs. THE DCIT, CIR-2[1],

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires