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

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed

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

10 SCC 744 43. (1928) 1 KB 561 44. (1888) 13 A.C. 603 45. (2005) 4 SCC 530 46. (1951) 2 All ER 839 (HL) 47. (1990) 3 SCC 682 48. (1989) 4 SCC 323 49. (1995) 3

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

3) of the Act, 1961 determining the income of Rs.3,33,18,027/- being brokerage/commission @2% on the aforesaid cash deposits of Rs.166.59 crores. He also added the aforesaid amount of Rs.166.59 crores in the income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act, 1961. Aggrieved, the respondent/assessee filed an appeal being Appeal No.107/CC-VII/CIT

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S. SIVARAMA REDDY

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

10, 2016, the Notification dated February 19, 2016 stood rescinded. It is noted that the rescinding order had been issued within 25 days from the issuance of the original Notification. Relevant extract of the Notification issuing the rescinding order reads as under: “And further in exercise of the powers conferred by sub sections (3) and (13) of section

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

The appeal is disposed of

3. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for short). The Tribunal vide order dated 29.06.2012 inter alia held that invocation of Section 263 of the Act on the ground of lack of enquiry with regard to claim of deduction made by the assessee under Section

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

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

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 of the Act. Against the assessment order, the appellant/assessee preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the CIT(A) by Order dated

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

EVEREST ORGANICS LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF I.T., HYDERABAD

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

10 41 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters court will have to judge the matter as a reasonable man would judge of any matter in the conduct of his own business. In R. v. Sussex Justices [(1924) 1 KB 256, 259 : 1923 All ER Rep 233] it has been indicated that answer to the question whether there

C. SANYASI RAJU vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIZAG.

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

10 41 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters court will have to judge the matter as a reasonable man would judge of any matter in the conduct of his own business. In R. v. Sussex Justices [(1924) 1 KB 256, 259 : 1923 All ER Rep 233] it has been indicated that answer to the question whether there

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.Samrakshna Electricals Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10 41 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters court will have to judge the matter as a reasonable man would judge of any matter in the conduct of his own business. In R. v. Sussex Justices [(1924) 1 KB 256, 259 : 1923 All ER Rep 233] it has been indicated that answer to the question whether there

M/s.GVK Petro Chemicals Private Limited,(Novo Resins AND vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,

10 41 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters court will have to judge the matter as a reasonable man would judge of any matter in the conduct of his own business. In R. v. Sussex Justices [(1924) 1 KB 256, 259 : 1923 All ER Rep 233] it has been indicated that answer to the question whether there

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

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. A case of death

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

10 SCC 201] (hereinafter referred to as Kesoram Industries case, for brevity). In the later decision, a Bench of five Judges, after citing the above passage from Justice G.P. Singh's treatise, summed up the following principles applicable to the interpretation of a taxing statute; 37 RNT, J & HN, J TREVC. No. 83 of 2008 & batch ‘(/) In interpreting a taxing

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

10. The plaintiffs are claiming title based on the Will dated 13.06.1956. Execution of the said Will was denied by the defendants. In order to prove the execution of proof of the Will, it is necessary to consider Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act which reads as under: 23 “63. Execution of unprivileged wills.— Every testator, not being

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

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

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

3) Whether registration of a Will or codicil dispenses with the need of proving the execution and attestation of Will in the manner required by Section 68 of the Evidence Act?” FAO No. 327/2007 Page 9 of 12 21. While replying the first question, the Apex Court has observed:- “Question-1: 9. 'Will' and 'codicil' are defined respectively

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