The Commissioner Of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s. PCL Intertech Lenhydro Consortium JV

Appeal is allowed, by setting the judgment of the trial

Bench: The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court Date Of Reservation 03/03/2023 Date Of Judgment 26/04/2023 Coram: The Hon'Ble Mr Justice G.Ilangovan Crl.A(Md)No.176 Of 2017 State Represented By The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras-104 (Crime No.13 Of 2003 Of V & A.C., Madurai) : Appellant/Complainant Vs. A.Arunagiri Personal Assistant To R.T.O (Rtd.,) Madurai North, Madurai. : Respondent/Complainant Prayer: Criminal Appeal Is Filed Under Section 378(1)(B) Of The Criminal Procedure Code, To Set Aside The Judgment Of Acquittal Of The Respondent Passed By The Special Court For Trial Of Cases Under The Prevention Of Corruption Act, Madurai, In Special Case No.15 Of 2011, Dated 17/11/2016. For Appellant : Mr.S.Ravi Additional Public Prosecutor For Respondent : Mr.K.M.Karunakaran Https://Www.Mhc.Tn.Gov.In/Judis

378(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment of acquittal of the respondent passed by the Special Court for trial of cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Madurai, in Special Case No.15 of 2011, dated 17/11/2016. For Appellant : Mr.S.Ravi Additional Public Prosecutor For Respondent : Mr.K.M.Karunakaran https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

The Commissioner of Income - Tax II vs. Transport Corporation of India Limited

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Budihal R.B.

378(4) Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order dated:01.03.2013 passed by the XIII A.C.M.M., Bangalore in C.C.No.12052/2009 – acquitting the respondent/accused for the offence p/u/s 138 of N.I. Act. This Appeal coming on for Hearing this day, the Court delivered the following : JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the complainant being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. K SUDHA RANI

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Ascend Telecom Infrastructure Private Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

house property, interest on securities, capital gains, or other sources, the word `income’ should be understood in its Date of Judgment 14-08-2018 I.T.A.No.346/2015 Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s Academy of Liberal Education 17/21 commercial sense, i.e., book income, after adding back any appropriations or applications thereof towards the purposes of the trust or otherwise

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/s. Murala Venkateswara Rao AND others

Appeal is dismissed,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

378(4) of Cr.P.C against the Judgment 02-06-2006 passed in CC.No.20 of 2001, on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam Between: dated District. State, represented by its Inspector of Police Investigation Central Bureau of Special Police Establishment, represented by its Special Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Amaravati. Visakhapatnam

Commissioner of Income Tax- IT and TP vs. M/s. Louis Berger International Inc.,

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Section 18 and explained its significance in the following words: ―22. The significance of Section 18 of the Act can be understood in the light of the above provisions. Section 18 provides for provisional assessment of duty in cases specified in sub-section (1) of the section. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) deals with cases where the importer

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s. Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Section 18 and explained its significance in the following words: ―22. The significance of Section 18 of the Act can be understood in the light of the above provisions. Section 18 provides for provisional assessment of duty in cases specified in sub-section (1) of the section. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) deals with cases where the importer

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