THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX vs. M/S V.SATAYANARAYANA

The appeal is allowed

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

1:15 pm. xi. PW-3 recalled that during the transaction as part of the entrapment process, both he and PW-8 overheard a conversation conducted in Bengali between the appellant and PW-2, witnessing the exchange of the bribe money. Following the conversation, the entrapment operation unfolded, leading to the apprehension of the appellant. PW- 3 also noted that

M/S. GAUTAMI POWER LIMITED vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

68-C of the old Act, pending on the date of enforcement of the new Act, namely, 1.7.1989, • the period of one year as prescribed under S. 100(4) should be computed from the date of commencement of the new Act. This interpretation would give full effect to • both. the Sections

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

68. There is also merit in the contention of the Petitioners that Section 28(11) confers validity only on „the proper officer.‟ As explained in Consolidated Coffee Ltd. v. Coffee Board (supra), the use of article „the‟ as opposed to „an‟ or „any‟ is indeed significant. Only officers who have been assigned the functions of the „proper officer

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

The appeal is allowed

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

section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. 2. Since both the appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 16.02.2017 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Garhwa in Original M.M.Suit No. 68

Commissioenr of Income Tax vs. Dr. T. Ravi Kumar

Section 271(1)(c). The penalty of Rs. 99,68,280/-imposed by the AO for A. Y. 1995-1996 is therefore

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Atyam Suryanarayana

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 5Th February 2024. Appearance: Mr. Om Narayan Rai, Advocate Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate …For The Appellant. 1. Heard Sri Om Narayan Rai, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Appellant. None Appears For The Respondent Assessee. 2. Affidavit Of Service Filed Today By Learned Counsel For The Appellant, In Compliance Of The Orders Dated 17.02.2023 & 15.01.2024, Is Taken On Record. Service Of Notice Upon The Respondent Assessee Is Found To Be Sufficient. 3. This Appeal Was Admitted By Order Of This Court Dated 03.09.2010, On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law:- “I) Whether The Learned Tribunal Was Justified On The Facts & Circumstances Of This Case To Follow The Ratio Decided By The

Section 68 of the Act, 1961. Aggrieved, the respondent/assessee filed an appeal being Appeal No.107/CC-VII/CIT(A),C- I/07-08 before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Central – 1

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), vs. M/s Country Club Inda Limited

Section 1. Assignment and Assumption. Assignor hereby assigns to the Assignee all the rights, entitlements, covenants and obligations of the Assignor under the Equipment Contract to sell, supply and deliver the Equipment to the Purchaser under the Equipment Contract and the Assignee hereby assumes, and agrees with all of the parties hereto, to perform, observe and be bound

Commissioner of Income Tax-i, vs. Agricultural Market Committee

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar

section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act (‘PC Act’ for short), and been sentenced for simple imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.50,000/- with default imprisonment for six months. 2. The accused was working as the manager of Canara Bank, Sindhaghatta Branch, Mandya District, during the check period 1.5.2004 to 9.5.2006. The investigation that followed

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

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Sri Ch.Govardhan Naidu

The appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

1), Raipur, which was duly served on the appellant/assessee on 22.8.2013. Ultimately, on 30.3.2015, assessment order under Section 143(3) of 4/9 (Tax Case No. 63 of 2022) the Act was passed by the A.O. re-computing the income of the appellant/assessee at Rs.34,02,650/- after making addition of Rs.24,78,800/- under Section 68

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

1) [The rate of duty [* * *] and tariff valuation, if any, applicable to any imported goods, shall be the rate and valuation in force,— (a) in the case of goods entered for home consumption under Section 46, on the date on which a bill of entry in respect of such goods is presented under that section

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

1) [The rate of duty [* * *] and tariff valuation, if any, applicable to any imported goods, shall be the rate and valuation in force,— (a) in the case of goods entered for home consumption under Section 46, on the date on which a bill of entry in respect of such goods is presented under that section

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed

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

Section 5(1) of the Tariff Act, must be given due weight and cannot be readily ignored, unless a case of the 36 excisable good, referred to in a particular chapter of the First Schedule to the Tariff Act, not amounting to “manufacture” or “production” is made out. 68

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/s. Murala Venkateswara Rao AND others

Appeal is dismissed,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1) (d) (ii) of the PC Act, 1988, if a public servant, by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, he is guilty 16. SRK,J Crl.A.No.190 of 2007 13 of criminal misconduct punishable under Section

Paro Food Products, vs. Commissioner of Income Tax -VI

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

68 of the Act was refunded and consequently, the question of treating the same as concealed income for the purposes of levy of penalty is illegal. It is also submitted that the issue with regard to validity of the proceeding initiated under Section 271(1

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

Section 68 of the Evidence Act. Thus the plaintiffs have failed to prove that Munipapaiah executed a Will dated 13.06.1956. In view of the above discussion, I answer point No.1 in negative. 13. Point No.2: Plaintiffs examined their power of attorney holder as PW-1. PW-1 has no personal knowledge about the case and he has clearly admitted

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

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 stated facts of the present case are that the assessee is engaged in trading (export and domestic) of 2 various commodities. During

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