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-III., vs. Smt. Chirala Nivedita Reddy

reassessment notice, this time alleging that exemption claimed under Section 10(29) was inadmissible. He sought to add back a sum of ₹15,90

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

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

90,504/- (c) Besides, there were other items which had been wrongly claimed as expenses and disallowance under Section 14A was not worked out.” 3. In W.P.(C) 2795/2008 (for AY 2005-06) the allegations and grounds of reassessment

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

Bench: The Learned

90 crores claimed by the Assessee. 7. The Assessee had deposited the consideration in the capital gains account in two tranches – ₹30 crores on 28.07.2011 and ₹60 crores on 29.07.2011. The AO noted that the Assessee had paid a certain amount to a charitable trust/educational society, which, in turn, had paid certain sums to Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing

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

reassessment under Section 28 of the Act and was, therefore, not a „proper officer‟ for the purposes of Section 2(34) of the Act. 88. For the reasons already explained, the recourse to Section 28(11) of the Act as introduced with effect from 8th July 2011 cannot be had to validate the impugned SCN particularly in view of Explanation

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

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

90) days after giving thirty (30) days prior notice to the Sub Lessee in writing intimating its intention to do so and the Deed of Sub Lease shall terminate on the day of expiry of the notice period of thirty (30) days. The Sub Lessor shall refund the remaining 1madjusted monthly rent, if any, minus the rent already paid

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

reassessment or collection of such tax, interest, late fee or penalty shall, for all purposes, be deemed to be and to have always been done or taken in accordance with law; (ii) no suit or other proceedings shall be maintained or continued in any court against the State Government or any person or other authority whatsoever for the refund

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

90,102/- per Bigha. The other antecedent directions such as solatium and interest were also awarded by the learned Reference Court. Aggrieved by this award, the Appellants filed the present Appeals before this Court. By a judgment dated 07.06.2011, a Coordinate Bench of this Court decided a batch of Appeals, including the present Appeal of which the LA APP. 59/2007

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

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

90,102/- per Bigha. The other antecedent directions such as solatium and interest were also awarded by the learned Reference Court. Aggrieved by this award, the Appellants filed the present Appeals before this Court. By a judgment dated 07.06.2011, a Coordinate Bench of this Court decided a batch of Appeals, including the present Appeal of which the LA APP. 59/2007

The Commissioner of Income Tax -III vs. Sri T.C. Reddy

The appeal stands dismissed

90,000/-. When this is compared with the rate given by M/s Mrigiya Electronics Inds. Pvt. Ltd. To M/s Nikhar Builders for 1.85 bighas of land. (Rs. 16.54 lacs per bigha) the rate given to M/s Mrigiya Electronics Inds. Pvt. Ltd. Does not appear to be abnormal. Both the transactions took place almost at the same time and the transactions

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

The appeal is allowed

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

Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The Trial Court, vide order dated 28.03.2014, directed the respondent-husband to pay maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the appellant-wife and Rs. 6,000/- per month to the minor son, along with Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation costs. The Trial Court, vide order dated 10.01.2016, dismissed the matrimonial

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

reassessing the materials before the Arbitral Tribunal and substituting its view/opinion. xiii) The finding recorded by the learned Court to the effect that the respondent contractor had failed to complete the jobs within the stipulated period in terms of the contract and hence on the prayer of the respondent contractor time was extended by the applicant for completion is perverse

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 PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. L. SURYAKANTHAM, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

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