M/S NMDC LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed

Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

39 amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or affect the living condition of the other party. 85. Recently

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

39 of 137 buyer, if he had not passed on the incidence of such duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty to any other person; (d) the export duty as specified in Section 26; (e) drawback of duty payable under Sections 74 and 75.]‖ 24. The 2007 Rules have been framed in order to give effect

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

39 of 137 buyer, if he had not passed on the incidence of such duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty to any other person; (d) the export duty as specified in Section 26; (e) drawback of duty payable under Sections 74 and 75.]‖ 24. The 2007 Rules have been framed in order to give effect

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

reassessment proceedings. The relevant seized documents and set of papers were sent to the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), Jabalpur on 1-3-1995. d) The documents so received by the AO at Bhilai included one spiral bound diary, which was marked as MR-71/91. In the said diary certain receipts and disbursement of money was found

COMMR OF INCOME TAX [TDS], HYDERABAD vs. M/S JAYADARSHINI HOUSING PVT LTD., HYDERABAD

Appeals are hereby dismissed by

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

39,326/-. Therefore, I have reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the Ay 2003-04”. 14 As per Section 147 of the Act, if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year he may, subject to provisions of Section

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

Commissioner of Income Tax -II, vs. M/S Kasila Farms Ltd.,

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax(Central) vs. M/s.Madhu Enterprises

Bench: The Learned

1) of the act, the said section would not apply if the assessee owned more than one residential house. Clause (i) of the proviso to Section 54F of the Act is extracted below: “Section 54F. Capital gain on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged in case of investment in residential house. *** *** *** Provided that nothing contained in this

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

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

39 has rightly held as under: “39. There are several reasons as to why the submission of the learned counsel for the Respondent that the Respondent had validly terminated the Sub Lease Deed under Clause 8B thereof cannot be accepted. First and foremost is the reason that the Claimant had terminated the Sub Lease Deed in terms of Clause