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

22 (2019) 19 SCC 801 1994 Supp (3) SCC 606 23 33 RNT, J & HN, J TREVC. No. 83 of 2008 & batch determine whether the exemption is applicable to the assessee or not. Once such exemption is indeed .found to be applicable to the assessee, a liberal approach is to be adopted by the Court in construing the language, such

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

22 and challenging the validity of the release deed made in favour of Late Munipapaiah. The said suit was decreed. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in the aforesaid suit, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.67/1975. The said appeal came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 25.09.1978. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the courts below, preferred

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

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

10 of 12 11. It is also relevant to refer to Section 70 which provides that no unprivileged will on codicil, nor any part thereof, shall be revoked otherwise than by marriage, or by another will or codicil, or by some writing declaring an intention to revoke the same and executed in the manner in which an unprivileged will

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

22 of 66 (i) that the duty with interest and penalty has been paid in full, then, the proceedings in respect of such person or other persons to whom the notice is served under sub-section (1) or sub- section (4), shall, without prejudice to the provisions of sections 135, 135A and 140 be deemed

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.

10 lays down as to which contracts are enforceable and Section 14 lays down that certain contracts are not enforceable. Therefore, it cannot be laid down as a proposition of law that an agreement styled as a development agreement is not specifically enforceable under the said Act of 1963. The aspect of enforceability depends on facts of each case

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.Visakha Industries Ltd

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10-03-2010 APPELLANT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) RESPONDENTS: 1 SHRI.T.B.KUNHIMAHIN HAJI THEKKIL PO, KASARAGOD-671 541 ADDL.R2 TO R7 IMPLEADED 2 S.L.P KUNHIBI W/O. SHRI. KUNHIMAHIN HAJI, PADOOR HOUSE, CHETTANCHAL POST.,THEKKIL VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3 K.M. THAHIRA, AGED 48 YEARS D/O SHRI. T.B. KUNHIMAHIN HAJI

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

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

sections 68 and 69 of the Act. In consideration of all these observations, we are inclined to hold that the share application money as raised in the grounds of appeal ITA Nos.547/2013 & other connected matters Page 9 of 13 cannot be held as non-genuine and added as income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. Consequently, additions

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

The appeals are dismissed

sections 68 and 69 of the Act. In consideration of all these observations, we are inclined to hold that the share application money as raised in the grounds of appeal ITA Nos.547/2013 & other connected matters Page 9 of 13 cannot be held as non-genuine and added as income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. Consequently, additions

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

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

Appeal is partly allowed

10 property also. During his cross-examination, it is elicited that defendant no.1 was doing photo frame business and from said income he provided education to all children and performed their marriage. It is also elicited that defendant no.1 and his two brothers had effected partition in joint family property and that defendant no.1 purchased share allotted to his brother

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

10-03-2002 may be treated as return filed in response to notice under Section 148. Thereafter notice under Section 143 (2) was issued on 12- 12-2005. Further notice under Section 142 (1) was issued on 28-06-2006 calling for total salary particulars including all allowances received by him in the capacity of Minster during

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMEE TAX-III vs. M/S.V.B.C.FERRO ALLOYS LTD

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

68&&3&*** i \ )n 10.3 The amended prouisions utould. applg onlg in respect of inuestment made on or after 1 6-1998 . Doubts had been expressed in different quarters about -the continuance of exemption auailable under section 10 (23G) in respect of inuestments mad.e pior to 1-6-1998 ./or assessment Aear 1999-2000 and onuards. The Central Board

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

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

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

In the result, the appeals are allowed

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

68,625/- and in the process of determination, the said officer has included a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- received by the appellant from Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited (hereinafter referred to as “RLL”) towards “non-competition fee” included under the head “income from other sources” and treated it as revenue receipt and accordingly subjected the same to tax. As regards

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