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

10 16. In Sumati Dayal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore [1995 Supp. (2) SCC 453] this Court held: “In all cases in which a receipt is sought to be taxed income, the burden lies on the Department to prove that it is within the taxing provision and if a receipt is in the nature of income, “the burden

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

The appeal is disposed of

10 INCOME-TAX’, (2000) 243 ITR 83W (SC) and ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. HERO AUTO LTD.’, (2012) 343 ITR 342 (DEL). 6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel on both the sides and have perused the record. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of the relevant extract of Section

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

20,000/-, but notice under Section 133(6) of the Act was issued only to Mr. Anil Dengwani and though he did not reply to the notice, but no further action was taken to ascertain as to whether the assessee had borrowed the said amount from Mr. Anil Dengwani or not. No notice was issued to Ms. Seema

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

20" 29. At this juncture, we may refdr witiT profit to the RuICs, namely, the • National CQuncil for Teacher Education Rules, 1997' (for short thc Rules') •'LPA 24212011 with connected matters ' . page 24 of SQ le i which have been framed under Section 31 of the Act. Rule 8, which deals with inspectioh, reads, as follows: • ' . 8. Inspection

M/s. Maruthi Movies vs. Income Tax Officer

Bench: This Court & Making The Same A Rule Of Court, Alongwith Decree Against Respondents Awarding Rs.5,35,920/- Paid By The Petitioner To The Arbitrator As Their Share Of Fees As Per Order Dated 21.12.2010. 2. Respondent No.1 Has Filed Its Objections To The Award Under Section 30 & 33 Of The Act In Form Of I.A. No.9067/2011. Respondent No.2 Has Also Filed Its Objections To The Award.

20 of the Act of 1963. On plain reading of provisions of Chapter II, it cannot be laid down as a matter of law that a development agreement is not specifically enforceable. Such a contract is enforceable if it falls within the clauses (a) or (b) of Section 10 provided such contract does not fall

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

20 immovable properties which were joint in nature. The said Muniswamiappa died on 03.09.1935. After the demise of Muniswamiappa, there were serious differences amongst the brothers with regard to discharging of the debts and other liabilities which resulted in executing a release deed in favour of Late Munipapaiah. The said deed was registered on 06.01.1936. On the strength of release

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

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

10. The appellants have relied upon another letter stated to have been written by late Sh.Dinesh Bahl to her mother Ex.PW2/RX acknowledging the receipt of her letter appended on Ex.OW1/4. 11. It is the case of the appellants that the Codicil Ex.OW1/4 is the real codicil while Ex.P-2 relied upon by the respondent is not a real Codicil

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax - II vs. M/s. Kumar Raja Associates

In the result, all the Tax Revision

Bench: Floor, Opp.Gurudware Bus Stop, Th Stat, 0/O.Meghana Towers, 4 Visakhapatnam. ... Petitioner & M/S.Pulp-N-Pack [P] Limited, Tadimalla ... Respondent : Sri T.C.D.Sekhar, Gp For Commercial Tax Counsel For The Respondent : Sri S Suribabu, Representing On Behalf Of Sri S R R Viswanath Counsel For The Petitioner

20. It is a settled canon of statutory interpretation that as a first step, the courts ought to interpret the text of the provision and construct it literally. Provisions in a statute must be read in their original grammatical meaning to give its words a common textual meaning. However, this tool of interpretation can only be applied in cases where

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-1 vs. M/s. New River Software System Pvt Ltd.,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

20-12-2005 received by the company authorizing to raise share capital upto Rs. 600 Crores (iv) Copy of certificates of incorporation of shareholders (v) Confirmation given by remitter towards remittance for share capital (vi) Copy of FIRC (vii) Copy of bank statements (viii) Copy of Form 2 filed with ROC” 8. The Tribunal considered the contentions of the assessee

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Adaptec [India] Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

20-12-2005 received by the company authorizing to raise share capital upto Rs. 600 Crores (iv) Copy of certificates of incorporation of shareholders (v) Confirmation given by remitter towards remittance for share capital (vi) Copy of FIRC (vii) Copy of bank statements (viii) Copy of Form 2 filed with ROC” 8. The Tribunal considered the contentions of the assessee

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

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

10. The Bank details again contained two mobile numbers which were found to be of the assessee's wife. The assessee's wife also gave a statement to the effect that these mobile numbers belong to her. The call details, obtained by the Department also indicate regular calls having been made by the assessee and his son to the mobile

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Hyderabad House Pvt Ltd.,

20,000/- 13.12.2012 K. 30.06.2011 10 years 6,68,520/-* 26.04.2014 L. 02.10.2011 11 years 3,75,000/- 31.05.2014 M. 02.05.2012 14 years 3,75,000/- 29.09.2014 N. 04.02.2013 4 years 3,75,000/- 29.07.2013 * excluding medical expenses also awarded. 27. The above table graphically demonstrates not only divergence of opinion but also inconsistencies in approach. The incongruity is vivid

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

Appeal is partly allowed

20 YEARS 5A TO 5C ARE R/AT NO.58, CHIKKANNAMMA TEMPLE STREET JORIPET, BENGALURU - 560 002. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. SUBASH REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING) SRI. B.S. SHRIKANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5(a) TO R5(c) R1 DEAD] THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC,AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 05.08.2011 PASSED

Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. M/S Sri Ramanjaneya Poultry Farm Pvt., Ltd.,

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

20 and that words in that section were wide enough to take within its sweep even erroneous orders of assessment and would be entitled to claim protection against the institution of a civil suit. The court then observed: "The jurisdiction of a civil court can be excluded even without an express provision. In every case, the question about

Commissioner of Incometax-1, Hyderabad vs. M/s. Divis Laboratories Ltd.,

The appeals are allowed

10) Taking advantage of the same, the applicant filed an application on 31.12.1997, in respect of four assessment years i.e. 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98. 11) Thereafter, a certificate was issued to her under Section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1997. 12) By virtue thereof, in view of Section 68

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

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 68 cannot be invoked. 9. Aggrieved thereby, the Revenue has filed the present appeal before this Court. 10. Heard Sri B.Narasimha Sarma, learned counsel for the Revenue at the stage of admission. 11. Sri Sarma contended that the Tribunal’s findings are contrary to law, material on record and vitiated by irregularities in exercise of jurisdiction, that