M/s. Maruthi Movies vs. Income Tax Officer

Bench: This Court & Making The Same A Rule Of Court, Alongwith Decree Against Respondents Awarding Rs.5,35,920/- Paid By The Petitioner To The Arbitrator As Their Share Of Fees As Per Order Dated 21.12.2010. 2. Respondent No.1 Has Filed Its Objections To The Award Under Section 30 & 33 Of The Act In Form Of I.A. No.9067/2011. Respondent No.2 Has Also Filed Its Objections To The Award.

houses to be given as alternative accommodation to respondent nos. 2 and 3. 54. The Arbitrator refused to grant such additional directions and held as under:- “The reason is that all these directions relate to the events arising post award period. After I have given the award, I have no jurisdiction to give further directions. That jurisdiction would lie with

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. SRI KAVIVARAPU VENU, E.G.DIST

Appeal is dismissed and disposed of accordingly

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

378(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.') has been preferred by the appellant assailing the judgment of acquittal dated 24.05.2016 in CC No. 2624/11 passed by the learned MM-03 (N.I. Act) Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi whereby the respondent no. 2 (hereinafter referred to as „drawer‟) was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section

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

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

4 7. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against acquittal, which reads as under:- “25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

4) is not intended to explain how the accounts of the business undertaking should be maintained. It is intended only to bring to tax the excess income computed under the provisions of the Act in respect of business undertaking. 12. The depreciation if it is not allowed as necessary deduction for computing the income from the charitable institutions, then there

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 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

4. M. RAMAKRSIHNA S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NO.1, 1ST MAIN MUNISWAMY GOWDA LAYOUT HEBBAL KEMPAPURA BANGALORE 24 5. SUSHMA SHARMA S/O SOHAN SHARMA AGED ABOUT YEARS R/AT NO.5, S MUNISWAMY GOWDA LAYOUT HEBBAL KEMPAPURA BANGALORE - 24 6. S ANJALIDEVI D/O LATE SREERAMULU NAIDU AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO.4, MUNISWAMY GOWDA LAYOUT HEBBAL KEMPAPURA BANGALORE