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

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

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, vs. M/s. V.Dhana Reddy AND Co.,

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

274, Govind Yadav Vs. New India Insurance Company Limited; 2011 (10) SCC 683, R.D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd and Others; (1995) 1 SCC 551, Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another; (2011) 1 SCC 343/ 2011 ACJ 1, G. Ravindranath @ R. Chowdary Vs. E Srinivas and Another; (2013) 12 SCC 455, Lakshmana Gowda B.N. Vs. Oriental Insurance

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

The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) vs. Madhu Enterprises

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

274, relevant para- 9, 21 to 24.  Union of India Vs. Paliwal Electricals Pvt. Ltd, reported in (1996) 3 SCC 407, para- 8 to 10. 20. The learned Advocate General while placing reliance upon Section-94 of the JVAT Act, 2005, more particularly the provisions contained under sub-Section 3 of Section-94 has contended that a bare 42 reading

S.l. Shiva Raj vs. Commissioner of Income Tax,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

274, relevant para- 9, 21 to 24.  Union of India Vs. Paliwal Electricals Pvt. Ltd, reported in (1996) 3 SCC 407, para- 8 to 10. 20. The learned Advocate General while placing reliance upon Section-94 of the JVAT Act, 2005, more particularly the provisions contained under sub-Section 3 of Section-94 has contended that a bare 42 reading

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

property taken care of. Case ‘G’ : MAC Appeal No.175/2014 (In re: death of seventeen years‟ old child Hussain Haider) 15. The appeal presented by the insurance company which has been fastened with the liability to pay the compensation assails the judgment of the tribunal pronounced on 31.10.2013 whereby compensation in the sum of Rs.12,02,075/- was awarded in favour

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. L. SURYAKANTHAM, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

274…….... The Constitution Bench further held that the test of "some connection" enunciated in Bhagatram was not only contrary to the working test propounded in Automobile (AIR 1962 Sc 1406) but obliterated the very basis of compensatory tax. It was, therefore, held that the test of "some connection" as propounded in Bhagatram was not a correct view and the judgments