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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

36 of 137 (2) The provisions of this section shall not apply to baggage and goods imported by post. (3) [* * *] 16. Date for determination of rate of duty and tariff valuation of export goods.— [(1) The rate of duty and tariff valuation, if any, applicable to any export goods, shall be the rate and valuation in force

EVEREST ORGANICS LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF I.T., HYDERABAD

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 13 is somewhat obscure in its import. It enacts that no orders, instructions or directions shall be given by the Board so as to interfere with the discretion of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax in the exercise of his appellate functions. It does not, however, imply that the Board may give any directions or instructions

C. SANYASI RAJU vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIZAG.

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

Section 13 is somewhat obscure in its import. It enacts that no orders, instructions or directions shall be given by the Board so as to interfere with the discretion of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax in the exercise of his appellate functions. It does not, however, imply that the Board may give any directions or instructions

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.Samrakshna Electricals Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 13 is somewhat obscure in its import. It enacts that no orders, instructions or directions shall be given by the Board so as to interfere with the discretion of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax in the exercise of his appellate functions. It does not, however, imply that the Board may give any directions or instructions

M/s.GVK Petro Chemicals Private Limited,(Novo Resins AND vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,

Section 13 is somewhat obscure in its import. It enacts that no orders, instructions or directions shall be given by the Board so as to interfere with the discretion of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax in the exercise of his appellate functions. It does not, however, imply that the Board may give any directions or instructions

SYED ABBAS MIAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-I,KURNOOL

VII Schedule of the Constitution of India. Section 19 of the 101st Amendment had provided for transitional measures by empowering the competent legislatures or authorities to frame laws consistent with the 15 provisions of the 101st Amendment within a period of 1 year from the date of commencement of the 101st Amendment. 10. Learned Advocate General has pointed out that

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) vs. M/s. Hindustan RAtna (JV)

The Appeals are disposed of by modifying the award dated 20

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

vii) Loss of matrimonial prospects Rs. 1,00,000/- -4- 6. The claimant has assailed the aforesaid award on the grounds that the same is on lesser side, whereas, insurer has assailed the same being excessive. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 8. Learned Tribunal assessed the income

PR COMMR OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. K RAVINDER REDDY, HYDERABAD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

reassessment proceedings. The assessees resisted the move to assess them, contending that they were not subjected to income tax laws of India as they had no permanent establishment. The AO by order dated 31.12.2008 held that the appellant has a fixed place PE and DAPE in India. Further, the AO also deemed 10% of the value of supplies made

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Kalyani Wines

In the result, I find this appeal bereft of merit and accordingly,

Bench: Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Robin Phukan

vii) It is settled principle of law that even if the contract provides otherwise, the contractor is entitled to claim for delay as a result of the acts of the owner and the restrictive provisions in the contract would not operate after the stipulated period of the contract and if the period of works exceeds beyond the time schedule fixed

M/s. PLL-Suncon Joint Venture vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

vii. The arbitral tribunal returned the finding that the claimant appellant did not transmit the sale proceeds in their entirety in favour of M/s Ropas International. The version of the claimant that the goods exported by M/s FAO(OS) 373/2011 Page 8 of 44 Ropas International were overvalued too was rejected by the arbitral tribunal. viii. The appellant had produced

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

1 (supra). The question of computation of loss to the estate with reference to the notional income of non-earning persons specified in the second schedule to MV Act, referable to Section 163A, having MAC App. Nos. 554/2010 & conn. Page 34 of 70 been raised before the Supreme Court, while holding that “deviation from the structured formula as provided