Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s. BDR Projects Pvt. Ltd.

42 of the Finance Act stipulated that for the earlier Section 28 of the Act the following sections would be substituted: W.P. (C) 441/2013 & connected matters Page 20 of 66 28. Recovery of duties not levied or short-levied or erroneously refunded. - (1) Where any duty has not been levied or has been short-levied or erroneously refunded

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

The appeal is allowed

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

C) is concerned, is hereby affirmed. 71. Now coming to the issue of permanent alimony which is the subject matter in the F.A.No. 213 of 2019. It has been contended by the appellant/ wife that the permanent alimony as determined by the learned Family Court is not based upon the proper calculation as such requires interference by this Court

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-4 vs. Sri. Krishna Chigullapally

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

1)(a)(ii) of the KVAT Act. However, insofar as it relates to Telecommunication equipment, the same requires to be notified by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred under the KVAT Act and the State Government has been issuing Notifications specifying the products which would be treated as IT products;  Notification No. FD 43 CSL 07(02) dated

Mr. Vasamsetty Veera Venkata Satyanarayana vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1

The appeal is allowed and the order passed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

reassessing the shipping bills a communication was issued by the department dated 17.08.2023 calling upon the respondent to submit all connected documents and the respondent in response submitted the required documents and immediately thereafter the adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund on 05.09.2023 and the same was paid to the respondent on 06.09.2023 and therefore, the question of payment of interests

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

42 of 137 India and imported at or about the same time as the goods being valued: PROVIDED that such transaction value shall not be the value of the goods provisionally assessed under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962. (2) The provisions of clauses (b) and (c) of sub-rule (1), sub-rule (2) and sub-rule

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

42 of 137 India and imported at or about the same time as the goods being valued: PROVIDED that such transaction value shall not be the value of the goods provisionally assessed under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962. (2) The provisions of clauses (b) and (c) of sub-rule (1), sub-rule (2) and sub-rule

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S The A.P.Mahesh Coop. Urban Bank Ltd,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

1)(n) of the BR Act, the doing of all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the promotion or advancement of the business of the company. Thus reading of Sections 5(b), (c) and Section 6 of the BR Act along with Section 80P(2)(a) of the Act, it becomes clear that the income received

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. The Andhra Bank Employees Co.Operative Bank Limited

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

1)(n) of the BR Act, the doing of all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the promotion or advancement of the business of the company. Thus reading of Sections 5(b), (c) and Section 6 of the BR Act along with Section 80P(2)(a) of the Act, it becomes clear that the income received

Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. The Agrasen Coop. Urban Bank Ltd.,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

1)(n) of the BR Act, the doing of all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the promotion or advancement of the business of the company. Thus reading of Sections 5(b), (c) and Section 6 of the BR Act along with Section 80P(2)(a) of the Act, it becomes clear that the income received

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/s. The A.P.Vardhaman(Mahila)Cooperative Urban

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

1)(n) of the BR Act, the doing of all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the promotion or advancement of the business of the company. Thus reading of Sections 5(b), (c) and Section 6 of the BR Act along with Section 80P(2)(a) of the Act, it becomes clear that the income received

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Sections 147/148 of the IT Act. Consequently, the answer to this question is given in favour of assessee to hold the decision of AO to reassess the assessee was not independent but was at the instance of superior officer. 42. Now next coming to the substantial questions of law which were admitted for hearing at the instance of Revenue

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

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

Sections 147/148 of the IT Act. Consequently, the answer to this question is given in favour of assessee to hold the decision of AO to reassess the assessee was not independent but was at the instance of superior officer. 42. Now next coming to the substantial questions of law which were admitted for hearing at the instance of Revenue

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Sections 147/148 of the IT Act. Consequently, the answer to this question is given in favour of assessee to hold the decision of AO to reassess the assessee was not independent but was at the instance of superior officer. 42. Now next coming to the substantial questions of law which were admitted for hearing at the instance of Revenue

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

Sections 147/148 of the IT Act. Consequently, the answer to this question is given in favour of assessee to hold the decision of AO to reassess the assessee was not independent but was at the instance of superior officer. 42. Now next coming to the substantial questions of law which were admitted for hearing at the instance of Revenue

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

42 West Bengal Finance Act, 2017 to the Entry Tax Act, 2012 are invalid simply on the basis that, the Entry Tax Act, 2012 stood obliterated on the expiry of 6 weeks from the date of the impugned judgement and order. 74. State legislature by the West Bengal Finance Act, 2017 had amended the Indian Stamp

Dr.D. Siva Sankara Rao-HUF vs. I.T.O. Ward-2, Eluru

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

42 of 171 Mr. Gaganmeet Singh Sachdeva, Mr. Harpreeet Singh Chadha, Advocates for DDA Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav Kumar, Advocates for DDA Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. + LA.APP. 647/2009, CM APPL. 8877-79/2025 MEHAR CHAND & ORS .....Appellants

P.V.S.Raju vs. The Addl. C.I.T.

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

42 of 171 Mr. Gaganmeet Singh Sachdeva, Mr. Harpreeet Singh Chadha, Advocates for DDA Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav Kumar, Advocates for DDA Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. + LA.APP. 647/2009, CM APPL. 8877-79/2025 MEHAR CHAND & ORS .....Appellants

Smt.Sudia Indira vs. The Income Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal from order stand dismissed

42, it is submitted by  learned advocate Ms. Mehta that averments made in plaint para Nos.3  and 4 amounts to sufficient compliance with requirements of law and  therefore, the learned trial Judge has committed error in dismissing the  injunction application on this count.  It is also submitted by Ms. Mehta  that the learned trial Judge has not considered the relevant

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