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

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

1 WP(Cri.) No.340-343 of 1993 (dated 30-1-1996) 9 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters Court regarding the progress achieved in the matter of investigation, therefore, the entire proceeding of the CBI and the Income Tax Department was being monitored by the Supreme Court. Under the circumstances the AO, who was taking cognizance of the development

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

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

1 WP(Cri.) No.340-343 of 1993 (dated 30-1-1996) 9 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters Court regarding the progress achieved in the matter of investigation, therefore, the entire proceeding of the CBI and the Income Tax Department was being monitored by the Supreme Court. Under the circumstances the AO, who was taking cognizance of the development

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1 WP(Cri.) No.340-343 of 1993 (dated 30-1-1996) 9 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters Court regarding the progress achieved in the matter of investigation, therefore, the entire proceeding of the CBI and the Income Tax Department was being monitored by the Supreme Court. Under the circumstances the AO, who was taking cognizance of the development

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

1 WP(Cri.) No.340-343 of 1993 (dated 30-1-1996) 9 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters Court regarding the progress achieved in the matter of investigation, therefore, the entire proceeding of the CBI and the Income Tax Department was being monitored by the Supreme Court. Under the circumstances the AO, who was taking cognizance of the development

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

vii), the rules and bye-laws of the society restrict the voting rights to the following classes of its members, namely:— (1) the individuals who contribute their labour or, as the case may be, carry on the fishing or allied activities; (2) the cooperative credit societies which provide financial assistance to the society; (3) the State Government; (4) The provisions

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

vii), the rules and bye-laws of the society restrict the voting rights to the following classes of its members, namely:— (1) the individuals who contribute their labour or, as the case may be, carry on the fishing or allied activities; (2) the cooperative credit societies which provide financial assistance to the society; (3) the State Government; (4) The provisions

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

vii), the rules and bye-laws of the society restrict the voting rights to the following classes of its members, namely:— (1) the individuals who contribute their labour or, as the case may be, carry on the fishing or allied activities; (2) the cooperative credit societies which provide financial assistance to the society; (3) the State Government; (4) The provisions

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

vii), the rules and bye-laws of the society restrict the voting rights to the following classes of its members, namely:— (1) the individuals who contribute their labour or, as the case may be, carry on the fishing or allied activities; (2) the cooperative credit societies which provide financial assistance to the society; (3) the State Government; (4) The provisions

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Smt.Anitha Sanghi

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

vii) miscellaneous provision cannot be added back in accordance with Explanation of Section 115JA of the Act in the light of the judgment of the Apex court in H.C.L. Comnet when there is diminution in the value of assets as contended by the assessee and in view of the retrospective amendment to 5 Explanation (g) to Section 115JA

Sunil Kumar Ahuja vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

9. wrongfully n where the se were issued mentioned th incriminating perversity in 10. for the partie 11. factual aspec satisfy oursel authorization 12. consequentia after search w authorization of Income Ta Kumar Bans M/s M3M In C-13, Sushan day is for Ba Bansal, Smt. Tower-1, DL o. 97 of 2023 found from the premises of the crores

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

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

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-1 vs. M/s. New River Software System Pvt Ltd.,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

reassessment order was passed pursuant to the search proceedings under Section 132, whereby inter alia additions of various amounts were made under Section 68 of the Act for Assessment Years (AYs) 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. These amounts were primarily towards share application money received from various companies. The AO made additions/disallowance

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Adaptec [India] Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

reassessment order was passed pursuant to the search proceedings under Section 132, whereby inter alia additions of various amounts were made under Section 68 of the Act for Assessment Years (AYs) 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. These amounts were primarily towards share application money received from various companies. The AO made additions/disallowance

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

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

9 of 2005. 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and order the learned District Judge, Kamrup (M) has set-aside the arbitral award dated 05.04.2005, passed by the sole Arbitrator, Mrs. Justice M. Sharma (Retd.) in Case No. Arbi (MS) No. 02/2002. 4. In order to avoid confusion, the rank of the parties, assigned

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