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

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

section 5(c) lays down that … No officer, employee or agent engaged in the performance of investigative or prosecuting functions for any agent in any case shall, in that or a factually related case, participate or advise in the decision… This provision provides for the functional separation as against the structural separation within the same agency body, and is subject

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

section 5(c) lays down that … No officer, employee or agent engaged in the performance of investigative or prosecuting functions for any agent in any case shall, in that or a factually related case, participate or advise in the decision… This provision provides for the functional separation as against the structural separation within the same agency body, and is subject

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

section 5(c) lays down that … No officer, employee or agent engaged in the performance of investigative or prosecuting functions for any agent in any case shall, in that or a factually related case, participate or advise in the decision… This provision provides for the functional separation as against the structural separation within the same agency body, and is subject

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

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Dr. T.Ravi Kumar,

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 10Th April, 2024. Appearance: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjay Bhowmick, Advocate Ms. Swapna Das, Advocate … For The Appellant. Ms. Smita Das De, Advocate … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Sanjay Bhowmick, Learned Counsel For The Appellant/Assessee & Ms. Smita Das De, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Respondent. 2. The Assessment Years Involved In The Present Appeal Are Assessment Year 1999-2000 & Assessment Year 2000-01. By Order Dated 16.08.2012, This Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :-

57,59,010/-.under the head “profits and gains of business or profession”. He filed a revised return on 30.01.2002 disclosing the same amount of income under the head “house property” and loss under the head “business or profession”, but the loss carried forward was shown to be Rs.10,44,04,602/-. He also filed a letter dated

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

57, emphasis was laid on harmonising two seemingly conflicting provisions in order to avoid any inconsistency or repugnancy either within a section or between two different sections of the same statute. This was a further development of the principles of harmonising the two conflicting provisions explained in Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand Jain AIR 1997 SC 1006 as under

COMM.OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE vs. NAVABHARAT ENTERPRISES HYD

In the result, Income Tax Appeal No

Bench: This Court & Hence Both Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Decided By This Common Judgment. 2. Sri Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Rahul Agarwal, Advocate Have Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Sri Manish Goel, Advocate Has Put In Appearance On Behalf Of Revenue. 3. Revenue'S Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law:- (1)Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Tribunal Was Right In Holding That Authorization For Search

reassessment” in Section 132B shall be construed as references to “block assessment” . (emphasis applied) 26. Photocopy of warrant of authorisation issued in Form 45 under Section 112(I) of Income Tax Rules, pursuant whereto search was conducted at Assessee's premises on 28.11.1996 was produced before Tribunal, which are quoted in para 11.2 of Tribunal's order and relevant extract

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s. Meghadoot Drillers,

57,00,000/- in assessment year 2004-05 and Rs. 20,00,000/- in assessment year 2005-06? 7. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the entire additions of Rs. 1,55,998/- made on account of bogus payment of commission of sale of scrap on the basis

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

57. Counsel for the defendant/respondent argued that the reliance of the appellant on the letter dated 15.1.1993 and 20.11.1993 exhibited as CW1/13 and CW1/14 were not executed by Anil Kapoor at all, nor it was ever admitted by the defendant/respondents in evidence. The original of the said two letters were never produced despite directions by the arbitrator. That is submitted

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

57. Learned Single Judge in the impugned judgement and order dated June 24, 2013 has relied upon Atiabari (supra), Automobile Transport (supra) and Jindal Steel Ltd (supra) to hold that the Entry Tax Act, 2012 is ultra vires the Constitution of India. 58. Learned Single Judge having relied upon Atiabari (supra), Automobile Transport (supra) and Jindal Steel Ltd (supra

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s.Viskha Container Terminal Private Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

reassess the income, all the consequent proceedings were null and void and it was not a case of irregularity. Therefore, Section 292B of the Act had no application. 16. When we apply the ratio of aforesaid cases to the facts of this case, the irresistible conclusion would be provisions of Section 292B of the Act are not applicable in such

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - Central vs. Shri. Isanaka Mastan Reddy

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

57 of 2023  Sharda Jain W/o Shikharchand Jain Aged About 56 Years Prop. Jai Bhawani Enterprises, E-430, Samta Colony, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 Raipur Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. The Deputy /assistant Commissioner Of Incom Tax Circle-1(1), Central Revenue Building, Civil

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

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

57 of 76 (c) In case of termination by the Sub Lessor under this sub- clause 8A, the Sub Lessee shall be further liable to pay the total aggregate rent for the remainder portion of the unexpired Lock-in Period of the sub lease (hereinafter referred to as the 'Balance Rent') 8(B) The Sub Lessee shall have a right

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

reassessment of damages. This is what was the theme of discourse in Santosh Devi (supra) and in a later decision in Puttamma (supra). In Puttamma (supra), the Supreme Court called upon the State to explain inaction on its part in the context of authorization given to the Central Government by Section 163-A (3) to make improvements on account

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

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

57 of 171 + LA.APP. 6/2012 GIAN CHAND DECD THR LRS & ORS .....Appellants Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. Ms. Nidhi Raman, Advocate for R- 2/DDA. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar

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

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

57 of 171 + LA.APP. 6/2012 GIAN CHAND DECD THR LRS & ORS .....Appellants Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. Ms. Nidhi Raman, Advocate for R- 2/DDA. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar

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

The appeal is allowed

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

57. Cruelty must be of such a type which will satisfy the conscience of the Court that the relationship between the parties has deteriorated to such an extent that it has become impossible for them to live together without mental agony. The cruelty practiced may be in many forms and it must be productive of an apprehension in the mind