The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Hyderabad vs. M/s. Vasant Intermediates Private Limited

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Ashok S. Kinagi

permanent injunction. In the said suit, plaintiffs asserted their possession over the suit property on the basis of the Will said to have been executed by 12 Munipapaiah. The said suit came to be dismissed. In the said suit, plaintiffs could have sought the relief of declaration of their title. The plaintiffs have failed to seek the relief of declaration

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68. As far as the ground of non user under section 13(1)(k) of the Act is concerned, he has invited my attention to paragraphs 72 and 73. He submitted that it has come on record that defendant no.1 has permanently shifted to Muscat some time in the year 1989. Thus, the plaintiffs have established

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

Appeal is partly allowed

permanent injunction against alienation of suit schedule properties. Though, trial Court granted 1/6th share in ‘A’ schedule property to each of plaintiffs, relief insofar as ‘B’ schedule property was denied despite defendant 16 no.3 examined as DW.2 clearly admitting in his cross-examination that plaintiffs also had share in ‘B’ schedule property. It was also contended that ‘A’ schedule property

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

The appeal is allowed

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

68 of 2016 so far, the annulment of marriage between the parties under Section 12(1) (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

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. M/S GOLDEN STAR FACILITIES AND SERVICES PVT LTD., HYD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Section 13 which provides for Rule making power of the Central Government in respect of minerals. Section 13 subsection (1) WP(C). 11249/2010 & other contd cases. -:88:- and Section 13 Sub-section (2) in so far as relevant in the present case are as follows: “13. Power of Central Government to make Rules in respect of minerals.-- (1) The Central

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

establish guilt and secure conviction of the accused by proving the charge ―beyond reasonable doubt‖. In Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai [Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai, (2003) 12 SCC 395 : 2004 SCC (Cri) Supp 445] referring to the expression ―reasonable doubt‖ in criminal law it was held as under : (SCC p. 405, para 24) ―24. Doubts would be called reasonable

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

establish guilt and secure conviction of the accused by proving the charge ―beyond reasonable doubt‖. In Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai [Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai, (2003) 12 SCC 395 : 2004 SCC (Cri) Supp 445] referring to the expression ―reasonable doubt‖ in criminal law it was held as under : (SCC p. 405, para 24) ―24. Doubts would be called reasonable

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

The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Vaishnavi Educational Society

In the result, this Cross Objection is allowed and the suit is

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

permanent prohibitory injunction against the Owners from trespassing into the properties covered by RFA 554/15 & CON. CASES 11 the Sale Deeds, asserting that the said Deeds are valid and themselves to be in its possession. 5. The afore three suits were taken to trial jointly, and the Trial Court marked Exhibits A1 to A30 on the side of the Owners

V.C. NANNAPANENI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

In the result, the appeals are allowed

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

Permanent Account/G.I.R. No.N-707/ABEPN 6301 L. The appellant filed his returns of income for the assessment year 1998-99 on 31.10.1998 and for the assessment year 1999- 2000 on 29.9.1999. For the assessment year 1998-99 he declared loss of Rs.1,91,209/- and for the next assessment year he declared loss of Rs.5,21,560/-. The returns of income were

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S.SREC PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Sections 66, 84 and 79 & 79 (2) (VIII) of MV Act. 4. While relying upon a case of M.C. Mehta Vs. UOI, (1977) 8 SCC 770, the learned counsel submitted that the respondent Nos.1 & 2 are guilty of violation of permit conditions on account of the grounds mentioned below:- a) That suitable speed control device was not fitted

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Chirla Rama Reddy, Contract

Appeal is dismissed with costs

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice N.K.Sudhindrarao R.S.A.No.70/2007

establish consideration being recognized. 42. In the context and circumstances of the case, before delving on the other aspects of the case, it is necessary to mention that there are three phases in the entire transaction. The first one is, the agreement claimed as Ex.P17 dated 30-2-1991 45 wherein the plaintiff Company entered into an agreement to purchase

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIAJAYAWADA vs. THE KRISHNA DISTRICT MILK PRODUCERS MUTUALLY AIDED CO -OP.,

In the result: MAC No. 734 of 2017 preferred by the insurance company

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

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal considering the evidence led by both the parties passed an award to the tune of Rs. 35,38,820/- 4 alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its actual payment in favour of the claimants fastening liability of payment of compensation upon the Appellant/Insurance

M/s. Bathina Technologies (India) Limited, vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II,

Appeals are allowed in part

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Suraj Govindaraj

SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.06.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.60/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE AD-HOC DISTRICT JUDGE, PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, KODAGU, MADIKERI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION ***** THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT

Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

68 Years, Occ Household, R/o. 14-'l-363, New Agapura, Hyderabad. 4. Saranga Pavan Kumar, S/o. Late Saranga Krishna Murthy, Aged about 42 Years. Occ. Business, R/o. 14-1-363, NewAgapura, Hyderabad. 5. A. Manjula, Wo. A Madhusudhan, Aged about 49 Years, Occ Household, Rlo.5-2-544, Osman Gunj, Risala Abdulla, Nampaily. Hyderabad. 6. Bande Vani, Wo. Bande Srinivas, Aged about

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agrilcultural Market Committee

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

68 Years, Occ Household, R/o. 14-'l-363, New Agapura, Hyderabad. 4. Saranga Pavan Kumar, S/o. Late Saranga Krishna Murthy, Aged about 42 Years. Occ. Business, R/o. 14-1-363, NewAgapura, Hyderabad. 5. A. Manjula, Wo. A Madhusudhan, Aged about 49 Years, Occ Household, Rlo.5-2-544, Osman Gunj, Risala Abdulla, Nampaily. Hyderabad. 6. Bande Vani, Wo. Bande Srinivas, Aged about

THEE COMMSSR.OF INCOME TAX.HYD. vs. CHALLA SHANKER REDDY.HYD.

Bench: L.NARASIMHA REDDY,T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

permanent frirect:rs. The appellant No.1/Image Deve.ope :s filed Form No.23 on 09.10. 1!)96 appointing the appellant No.2/C.V Rao as the Managing Dire(rtor. of the appellant No.l/Image Developers and the said Form No.23 rvr; s registered with the Registrar of Ocmpanies on 14.o2.1997. 29. On 24 .1'. .)993, the appellant No.2/C.V. Rao caused the respondents

COMMR.OF I.T. RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/S.NARAYANA CHOWDARYAND ORS KAKINADA

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

permanent frirect:rs. The appellant No.1/Image Deve.ope :s filed Form No.23 on 09.10. 1!)96 appointing the appellant No.2/C.V Rao as the Managing Dire(rtor. of the appellant No.l/Image Developers and the said Form No.23 rvr; s registered with the Registrar of Ocmpanies on 14.o2.1997. 29. On 24 .1'. .)993, the appellant No.2/C.V. Rao caused the respondents