Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [TDS] vs. M/s.KCIL-MEIL [JV]

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

natural justice and/or denial of reasonable opportunity to the dealer, including the right to cross-examine the persons whose statements the Revenue is relying on in support of its case against the dealer, for initiating and concluding penalty proceedings. The above conclusions take us to the next argument of Mr.Mohammed Rafiq. 10. The Special Government Pleader contends that Section

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Sri B.Ramanarayanba Rao

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 12Th December, 2023 Appearance: Ms. Anupa Banerjee, Adv. …For The Appellant. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. ...For The Respondent. 1. Supplementary Paper Book Filed Today By The Assessee Is Taken On Record. 2. Heard Ms. Anupa Banerjee, Learned Counsel For The Appellant/Assessee & Mr. Amit Sharma, Learned Standing Counsel For The Respondent/Income Tax Department. Facts: 3. Briefly Stated Facts Of The Present Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In Trading (Export & Domestic) Of

JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ Date : 12th December, 2023 Appearance: Ms. Anupa Banerjee, Adv. …for the appellant. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. ...for the respondent. 1. Supplementary paper book filed today by the assessee is taken on record. 2. Heard Ms. Anupa Banerjee, learned counsel for the appellant/assessee and Mr. Amit Sharma, learned standing counsel for the respondent/Income Tax Department. Facts: 3. Briefly

A.P.State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited vs. The Income tax Officer

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? : MOOL CHAND GARG,J. (ORAL) * 1. The present appeal arises out of a judgment dated 13.05.2007 delivered by the Additional District Judge, Delhi

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

68. That, the AO has duty to act judicially and independently and its judgment cannot be controlled by the superior authority. The Supreme Court in Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. Union of India27, held thus : 5. According to the learned Attorney-General the assessment proceedings are not of a quasi-judicial nature nor is the Assessing authority a quasi- judicial

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

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

68. That, the AO has duty to act judicially and independently and its judgment cannot be controlled by the superior authority. The Supreme Court in Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. Union of India27, held thus : 5. According to the learned Attorney-General the assessment proceedings are not of a quasi-judicial nature nor is the Assessing authority a quasi- judicial

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68. That, the AO has duty to act judicially and independently and its judgment cannot be controlled by the superior authority. The Supreme Court in Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. Union of India27, held thus : 5. According to the learned Attorney-General the assessment proceedings are not of a quasi-judicial nature nor is the Assessing authority a quasi- judicial

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

68. That, the AO has duty to act judicially and independently and its judgment cannot be controlled by the superior authority. The Supreme Court in Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. Union of India27, held thus : 5. According to the learned Attorney-General the assessment proceedings are not of a quasi-judicial nature nor is the Assessing authority a quasi- judicial

Commissioner of Income Tax-V, vs. M/s.Sirveen Control Systems

Appeal is partly allowed

JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI R.F.A.No.48/2012 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. M. SRINIVAS S/O. SRI. MUNIYAPPA P AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.58, 1ST FLOOR CHIKKANNAMMA TEMPLE STREET JORIPET, BENGALURU - 560 002. 2. SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR S/O. SRI. MUNIYAPPA P. AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO.58, 4TH FLOOR CHIKKANNAMMA TEMPLE STREET JORIPET, BENGALURU - 560 002. 3. SMT. ANNAPOORNA

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Dr.Kodela Siva Prasada Rao

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Justice M.S.Ramachandra Rao): This appeal is filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) by the Revenue challenging the order dated 29-06-2010 in I.T.A.No.677/Vizag/2008 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam relating to the assessment year 2003-04. 2. The respondent/assessee, an ex-MLA and an Ex-Minister filed

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

natural justice nor that the Arbitrator acted contrary to any agreement between the parties as to the procedure to be followed by him. In the circumstances, the award in question cannot be set aside simply on the ground that the Arbitrator according to the petitioner-objector excluded certain evidence placed before him by it.” 68, From reading of the above

M/S. SRIMAN SAI SECURITIES INV. FIN. LTD., vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,KARIMNAGAR.

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,M.S.K.JAISWAL

Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy) The assessee, being unsuccessful before both the lower appellate fora, filed this appeal by raising the following substantial question of law: "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in sustaining the order of the CIT (Appeals) who confirmed the order of the assessing authority treating

The Commissioner of Income -Tax - III, vs. Shri Taher Ali

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

justice. While exercising revisional jurisdiction, the High Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence on record and exercise appellate jurisdiction. In other words, the High Court cannot exercise its powers as an appellate power to re- appreciate or re-assess the evidence for coming to different findings on facts. Revisional power is not and cannot be equated with the power

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. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed

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

natural state in pine trees and has not been converted into another commodity known to the trade as having a different name, character or use; the burden of proof, that there is a manufacture of some goods as spelt out in the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, falls on the revenue; the revenue failed to discharge

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. The Andhra Petro Chemicals Limited

JUSTICE ASHISH NAITHANI 24TH MARCH, 2025 Writ Petition (S/B) No. 515 OF 2017 Dr. Umesh Kumar Singh …Petitioner Versus The Chancellor, Kumaon University Nainital and others …..Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, learned counsel . Counsel for the respondent no. 4 : Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel. Counsel for the respondent no. 5 : Mr. K.P. Upadhyaya, Senior Counsel, assisted

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S. SIVARAMA REDDY

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

JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO J U D G M E N T V. KAMESWAR RAO, J CM No. 41572/2017 (for taking the additional documents on record) & CM No. 41573/2017 (for permission to file LPA against the judgment and order dated 31.8.2017 in WP(C) 2217/2016) in LPA 733/2017 For the reasons stated in the applications, the same are allowed

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Energy Solutions International India Pvt Ltd.,

Bench: J. UMA DEVI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee) laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession…”. The text of this sub section shows its building blocks such as: ‘expenditure’, ‘wholly and exclusively

THE APR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. SHRI TUMMALA SRI RAM BABU

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH J U D G E M E N T 1. OMP (COMM) 432/2017 has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) challenging the arbitral award dated 17.10.2017, by SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner. 2. Subsequent to the filing of the petition, Power Mech Projects