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

6 of the Act are totally different from assigning the power of issuing an SCN to a Customs Officer under Section 4 of the Act. Analysis of Section 28 (11) of the Act 43. The first issue is to be considered whether Section 28 (11) cures the defects pointed out by the Supreme Court in Sayed Ali (supra). In examining

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

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

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

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

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

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

reassess or issue said notice. Decision of Nokia will not apply to facts of this case.” (Emphasis Supplied) 18. As noticed hereinabove, in Entry No. 60(6)(g) of the Punjab VAT Act, the expression used is ‘cellular telephone’ whereas in the Notification issued under KVAT Act, the words used are ‘and parts thereof’. Further, the parts falling under Heading

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

1. This appeal has been filed by the Customs Department under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act) challenging the order passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in Customs Appeal No. 76391 of 2024 filed by the respondent herein dated 07.01.2024. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

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 (3), of Rule 4 shall, mutatis mutandis, also apply in respect of similar goods.‖ 27. In terms of Rule 6, if the value of imported goods is found to be indeterminable in accordance with Rules

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

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 (3), of Rule 4 shall, mutatis mutandis, also apply in respect of similar goods.‖ 27. In terms of Rule 6, if the value of imported goods is found to be indeterminable in accordance with Rules

The Commissioner of Income Tax -V, vs. M/S Secunderabad Club

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

6. As per the provision of section 80IB where any deduction under chapter VI-A is to be allowed in respect of any income of the nature specified in that section which is included in the gross total income of the assessee, then, notwithstanding anything contained in that section, for the purpose of computing deduction under that section, the amount

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

1, 2012 that is the date when the Entry Tax Act, 2017 came into effect. 76. Prior to the amendment of section 4 (5) (b) and (c) of the Entry Tax Act, 2012 the same were as follows: – “4. …………………………………………………………………………… (5)……………………………………………………………………………. 43 (b) turnover of imports relating to entry of specified goods into a local area, have been purchased

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

6 of 2005 1. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Assessment) Special Range Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh. ---- Appellant Versus 1. Surendra Kumar Jain (Dead) Through Legal Heirs 1) Smt. Poonam Jain (Wife) W/o Lt. S.K. Jain, Aged About 70 Years R/o House No. B-5, Maharani Bagh, Sriniwaspuri S.O. South Delhi, New Delhi- 65 2) Ms. Geetika Jain (Daughter

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

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

6 of 2005 1. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Assessment) Special Range Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh. ---- Appellant Versus 1. Surendra Kumar Jain (Dead) Through Legal Heirs 1) Smt. Poonam Jain (Wife) W/o Lt. S.K. Jain, Aged About 70 Years R/o House No. B-5, Maharani Bagh, Sriniwaspuri S.O. South Delhi, New Delhi- 65 2) Ms. Geetika Jain (Daughter

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

6 of 2005 1. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Assessment) Special Range Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh. ---- Appellant Versus 1. Surendra Kumar Jain (Dead) Through Legal Heirs 1) Smt. Poonam Jain (Wife) W/o Lt. S.K. Jain, Aged About 70 Years R/o House No. B-5, Maharani Bagh, Sriniwaspuri S.O. South Delhi, New Delhi- 65 2) Ms. Geetika Jain (Daughter

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

6 of 2005 1. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Assessment) Special Range Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh. ---- Appellant Versus 1. Surendra Kumar Jain (Dead) Through Legal Heirs 1) Smt. Poonam Jain (Wife) W/o Lt. S.K. Jain, Aged About 70 Years R/o House No. B-5, Maharani Bagh, Sriniwaspuri S.O. South Delhi, New Delhi- 65 2) Ms. Geetika Jain (Daughter

The Director of Income Tax, (Exemptions) vs. Royal Education Society

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

C' BENCH, BENGALURU IN ITA NO.1372/BANG/2014 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 29.02.2016. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the assessee. The subject

PROGREESIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

1) of the Act determinirrg the income of the assessee ar Rs.1,09.12,410.00. 5. Subscqu,:ntly the aforesaid assessment was reopened under Section 147 ol the Act by issue of notice dated 31.01.1997 under Section 148 of the Act. 4 6 During the reassessment proceedings, assessing officer noted that in the original assessment proceedings, he had not talcn into