The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Swapna Lahari Pvt Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943 WA NO. 518 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 895/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE PROVINCIAL SUPERIOR, CARMALITE PROVINCIAL HOUSE CMC CONGREGATION, PALA

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Smt G Sailaja

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943 WA NO. 518 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 895/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE PROVINCIAL SUPERIOR, CARMALITE PROVINCIAL HOUSE CMC CONGREGATION, PALA

The Commissioner of Income Tax -1 vs. Harmahendar Singh Bagga

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943 WA NO. 518 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 895/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE PROVINCIAL SUPERIOR, CARMALITE PROVINCIAL HOUSE CMC CONGREGATION, PALA

Commissioner of Income TAx-II, Hyderabad vs. M/s. Sri Balaji Bio MAss Power Pvt. Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943 WA NO. 518 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 895/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE PROVINCIAL SUPERIOR, CARMALITE PROVINCIAL HOUSE CMC CONGREGATION, PALA

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. The Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943 WA NO. 518 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 895/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE PROVINCIAL SUPERIOR, CARMALITE PROVINCIAL HOUSE CMC CONGREGATION, PALA

The Commissioner of Income Tax - IV vs. M/s. Mekins Agro Product (P) Ltd.

Section v.. V 11(1). 6. Initially we were inclined to accept the submission raised by the Revenue that there are several good reasons why we have declined to interfere and refer the matter to a larger bench to consider judgment of this Court in DIT vs. Vishwa Jagriti Mission, ITA No.140/2012 (Del.). 7. The controversy in question

SRS AND Sri Sai Ganesh Productions vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Central)

Section 68, 69 and 69A and hence the addition made in the name of the assessee under ITA Nos. 303/2013 & con. 20 the above provision was justified. The peak credit as determined in the subject year represented the funds available with the assessee; was the finding of the Tribunal. The Tribunal also held that the deduction

COMMR.OF I.T. A.P.I HYD vs. DIAMOND HATCHERIES (P) LTD

Appeal is allowed

68 of 2001 Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana ...Appellant Versus M/s Highway Cycle Industries Ltd., Ludhiana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should

PENDURTHI CHANDRASEKHAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The appeal is allowed and all the four substantial

68. The fourth question of law relates to the addition of interest accrued on the unsecured loan granted to M/s. Dakshin Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, we shall answer the questions of law category wise. Substantial questions of law 1 to 3: 16. All these substantial questions of law revolve around the gift allegedly made by the father

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

Sections 36 (1) (iii) of the Act are met, deduction of interest cannot be denied merely because the Assessee was a cash rich company having enough resources of its own. 68

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

Sections 36 (1) (iii) of the Act are met, deduction of interest cannot be denied merely because the Assessee was a cash rich company having enough resources of its own. 68

The Commissioner of Income Tax - Central vs. M/s. Himagiri Biotech Pvt. Ltd.,

deduction under this section is admissible only when capital ¡s borrowed directly “for the purpose of business” of the assessee. It is argued that ITAT fell into error in appreciating section 36(1)(iii) even otherwise, because the proportionate amount of interest is needed to be added back, as the assessee during the course of the assessment proceedings has itself

SHRI GYAN KUMAR AGARWAL (INDL) vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

deducting the tax, the assessee is liable to pay balance tax for an amount of Rs.4,.12,.158/_ and penalty under Section 158 BC and 158 BD of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee fired appear before the commissioner of rncome Tax (Appeals)-|, Hyderabad and the appelrate authority dismissed the appeal by its common order dated Z2.OI.ZOOS

M/s. Canara Securities Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO,T.AMARNATH GOUD

Section 178 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the Chairman of the company, HVL cannot arrogate unto himself the power to cause such appointment when such power ultimately rests with the Board of Directors. The observation of the two Joint APLs that the evident performance of BCrL, the flagship company of MP Birla Group is deteriorating ever since, HVL became

Commissioner of Income Tax-V, vs. Sri Vinod Krishna Conjeevaram,

The appeal is dismissed

68 of the Act and added the income returned by the assessee. Aggrieved by this order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals). The appellate Authority sought a remand report from the Assessing Authority, which was submitted on 9.2.2012. After careful examination of the material on record and the remand report, the appellate authority held

The Commissioner of Income Tax - VI vs. Sri Danda Dharanidhar

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68. Our conclusion in terms of the application of Section 194-H of the IT Act to the supplementary commission amounts earned by the travel agent is unequivocally in favour of the Revenue. Section 194- H is to be read with Section 182 of the Contract Act. If a relationship between two parties as culled out from their intentions