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 that defendant no.1

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

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

10 of Section 28 of the Act to the extent that the SCN was issued prior to 8th April 2011. As far as actions now taken, after the insertion of Section 28 (11) of the Act, since it is a deeming provision, it empowers the officers of the DRI, DGCEI etc. to issue SCNs even for the period

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

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s Indur Green Power Private Limited

In the result, all the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10,00,000 (Ten Lacs.) Equity shares of Rs. 10/-(Rupees Ten only) each. IX. True accounts shall be kept of all sums of money received and expended by the Company and the matters in respect of which such receipts and expenditure take place and of the property, credits and liabilities of the Company; and, subject to any reasonable restrictions

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

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

68,000 9 Loan received from brother `3,25,000 10 Proceeds of NSC `86,500 11 Agriculture income `1,22,000 12 Customary gifts `2,04,000 Total Income ` 22,33,819.00 22,33,819.00 22,33,819.00 22,33,819.00 7. Sri. Nagendra Naik, learned counsel for the accused argued that the investigating officer did not account

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

The appeal is allowed

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

68 of 2016whereby and whereunder the Learned Family Court while allowing the petition filed under Section 12(1) (C) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by appellant/petitioner/wife has granted Rs. 30,00,000/-(Thirty Lakh) as permanent alimony to appellant and herein the amount of alimony has been challenged on the ground of miscalculation

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

10. On a preliminary examination of the scheme of Section 17 we are also of the view that while it may be open for an importer to proceed in terms of Section 17(5), the same would not detract from the obligation of the proper officer to have formed the requisite belief to doubt the transaction value

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

10. On a preliminary examination of the scheme of Section 17 we are also of the view that while it may be open for an importer to proceed in terms of Section 17(5), the same would not detract from the obligation of the proper officer to have formed the requisite belief to doubt the transaction value

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

1, Kolkata which was dismissed by the CIT(A) by an order dated 30.12.2008. Aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), the respondent/assessee filed ITA 515(Kol) of 2009 before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, A-Bench, Kolkata which was partly allowed by an order dated 14.10.2009. The tribunal determined the income of the assessee at Rs.4

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, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed

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

68. 1973 KLT 463 69. (1988) 69 STC 29 (Kerala DB) 70. 36 LJQB 81 71. (1954) 5 STC 348 (T-C) 72. (1955) 2 SCR 374 73. (1895) Q.B. 749 74. 15 Ves. 396, 406 75. 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 646 76. AIR 1960 SC 610 77. (1999) 6 SCC 275 78. (2015) 5 SCC 718 79. (2000) 1

Gutta Venkata Rama Devi vs. The Income Tax Officer

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

68 of 171 with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA + LA.AP. 256/2017 POJA .Apelant Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR .Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

68 of 171 with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA + LA.AP. 256/2017 POJA .Apelant Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR .Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Sri Laxmi Narasimha Wines,

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

68 of 171 with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA + LA.AP. 256/2017 POJA .Apelant Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR .Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar

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

68, the Calcutta High Court, while constructing the expression " expenditure incurred " in s. 44A of the Act, observed: "depreciation claimed shall include the expenditure incurred." There are only two recognised methods of accounting : (1) cash basis, and (ii) mercantile basis. Under the cash basis only cash transactions are recorded. It is only cash receipts and cash (U payments which find

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 Tax Case No.24 of 2011, decided on 4.4.2017. 7/9 (Tax Case No. 63 of 2022) 9. Coming to the facts of the case, it is quite vivid that though the appellant/assessee has provided the names of Ms. Seema R. Mutreja from whom he took Rs.2,50,000/- and Mr. Anil Dengwani from whom he borrowed Rs.18

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

Appeal is dismissed,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10 beyond reasonable doubt or not, and whether the impugned judgment calls for any interference by this Court? 13. This is an appeal against an Order of acquittal. There is a presumption available under, law that an accused officer is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved. That presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal