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

26 of 66 Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in Commissioner of Customs versus Sayed Ali and Anr. (Civil Appeal Nos. 4294-4295 of 2002) held that only a customs officer who has been specifically assigned the duties of assessment and re-assessment in the jurisdiction area is competent to issue a notice for the demand of duty

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

26. Whenever the statute prescribes that a particular Act is to be done in a particular manner and also lays down that failure to comply with the said requirement leads to severe consequences, such requirement would be mandatory. It is the cardinal rule of interpretation that where a statute provides that a particular thing should be done, it should

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

26,313/- on account of unexplained/unaccounted income of the assessee company for the period under consideration pertaining to the payments made to M/s Y2 Space Pte Ltd, with the total tax effect being 2.76 ITA Nos.547/2013 & other connected matters Page 3 of 13 Crore. The ITAT, while dismissing the appeals of the Revenue, had relied upon its order

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

The appeals are dismissed

26,313/- on account of unexplained/unaccounted income of the assessee company for the period under consideration pertaining to the payments made to M/s Y2 Space Pte Ltd, with the total tax effect being 2.76 ITA Nos.547/2013 & other connected matters Page 3 of 13 Crore. The ITAT, while dismissing the appeals of the Revenue, had relied upon its order

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.

26 53. Before proceeding further I would also like to note that the petitioner itself before the Arbitrator sought further directions incase specific performance was ordered by the Arbitrator. These, inter alia, included the direction to the respondents to approve one of the concept plans prepared by the architect and allocation of the specific sum as rent for houses

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

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 68 of the Act by order dated 26-09-2008. 8. Aggrieved, the assessee filed I.T.A.No.677/Vizag/2008 to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench, Visakhapatnam. After considering the donor’s confirmation letter annexed to the assessee’s letter dated 27-12-2006 and the second confirmation letter dated 10

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

26-07-2013 APPELLANT/S: K.P. ABDUL MAJEED 'SANA', KOTTARAM ROAD, CALICUT. BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN SMT.SMITHA GEORGE SRI.P.RAGHUNATH SRI.TERRY V.JAMES RESPONDENT/S: THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(10, CALICUT-673001. BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH SC FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.02.2019, ALONG WITH ITA.306/2013, ITA.305/2013, ITA.304/2013

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. The Andhra Petro Chemicals Limited

68 of the State Universities Act, 1973. The representation submitted by him was rejected by the Chancellor vide order dated 19.05.2017. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Chancellor and has sought other reliefs also, which are extracted above. In his representation made to the Chancellor, petitioner contended that respondent no. 4 was not qualified

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- 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

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

26,80,000 tc Hindustan Zinc Limited, Udaipur, for a consideration of Rs.40 crores. The date of sa'ie rn'as 03- 1 1 - 2000. The respondent claimed that the cost of the shares u,as Rs.6,'13,20,OOOl at a vaiue of Rs.24 l- per share' The capital gain '"vas Rs.31,56,8O,000/-. After indexation, lhe long

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

The appeal is allowed

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

10. In the case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi 18) the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows : ―LEGAL POSITION:- 8. Before we analyze the evidence, we must note that we are dealing with Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act as they stood prior to the amendment made

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

10. Accordingly, the head quarters Sub- Registrar, Gandhinagar, Bangalore, along with the Managing Director of plaintiff-Company went to Hotel Ashok on the evening of 7.3.1992 and when they went there, they were informed that 1st defendant was under medication and doctor has advised her to take full rest and nobody can meet her. In view of the said situation

Gutta Venkata Rama Devi vs. The Income Tax Officer

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

26 of 171 UOI & ORS. .Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

26 of 171 UOI & ORS. .Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind