THE APR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. SHRI TUMMALA SRI RAM BABU

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) challenging the arbitral award dated 17.10.2017, by SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner. 2. Subsequent to the filing of the petition, Power Mech Projects Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the respondent), on 11.12.2017 filed the OMP(I)(COMM) 523/2017 Page 2 of 21 present petition under

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

34, the following section insert:— “34A. Person claiming under document for sale of property also to sign document.—Subject to the provisions of this Act, no document for sale of peoperty shall be registered under this Act, unless the person claiming under the document has also signed such document.”. [Vide Tamil Nadu Act 28 of 2000]. 35. Procedure

M/s. PLL-Suncon Joint Venture vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

10 of 44 17. Further, in Para no. 58 of the interim award, the arbitral tribunal held that for construction of the cinema and its equipment, the partnership sought a loan from the financial institutions and from the business of partnership more assets were acquired and loan was paid. In para no. 59, the arbitrator found that: “in the letters

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

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Sri B.Ramanarayanba Rao

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 12Th December, 2023 Appearance: Ms. Anupa Banerjee, Adv. …For The Appellant. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. ...For The Respondent. 1. Supplementary Paper Book Filed Today By The Assessee Is Taken On Record. 2. Heard Ms. Anupa Banerjee, Learned Counsel For The Appellant/Assessee & Mr. Amit Sharma, Learned Standing Counsel For The Respondent/Income Tax Department. Facts: 3. Briefly Stated Facts Of The Present Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In Trading (Export & Domestic) Of

34,015/-. The assessing officer increased the GP Rate from the disclosed rate of 4.6% to 6% and thus, made an addition of Rs.30,19,867/- in the income of the assessee. 6. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed first appeal before the CIT(A), who determined the GP Rate to 5% and sustained the addition under Section 68

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

34. The passages extracted above, were quoted with approval by this Court in at least two decisions being CIT v. Kasturi & Sons Ltd. [CIT v. Kasturi & Sons Ltd., (1999) 3 SCC 346] and 5/a/e of .WB. Kesoram Industries Ltd. [State ofW.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd., (2004) 10 SCC 201] (hereinafter referred to as Kesoram Industries case, for brevity

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

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.

34 performance should in the facts of a case be granted is a separate matter, bearing on the discretion of the court.” 61. In Shri Pradeep Shankar Walveka (supra), the Bombay High Court held as under: “11. Sub-section (2) of Section 14 deals with the contract to refer disputes of arbitration, Sub-section

THE COMM. OF INCOME TAX RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/S B.KRISHNA MURTHY AND OTHERS

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

section 313 Cr.P.C. accused Subash Gupta had admitted that he had an inclination short of lust and infatuation towards Sujata Shah.” Crl.A.247/2000 & Crl.A.81/2003 Page 17 of 55 Other findings of the trial Court 33. The trial Court concluded that there was nothing to show that all the accused had met at Hotel Mohan at Ashok Vihar on 5th June

M/s. Kausalya Shelters Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 34 of the Act of 1996, shall not/ought not disturb the interpretation given by the learned Arbitrator, merely because another interpretation of the same Clause is also possible. Similarly, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Arbitrator in paragraph 51 of the Impugned Award is a plausible interpretation of the Clause 8(A)(c) of the sub-lease

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 Income Tax vs. Dr.Kodela Siva Prasada Rao

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

34,500/- including income from other sources of Rs.60,000/- earned by him during the previous year. He also admitted agricultural income of Rs.40,000/-. The return was processed under Section 143 (1) on 19-01- 2004. The assessing officer suspected that some income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and issued a notice under Section

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Jyothi Wines,

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

34,100/- as undisclosed investments under Section 69. Notice was initially issued under Section 68, proposing addition of unexplained credits; but eventually the additions were made under Section 69 as undisclosed investments. There was a further addition made of Rs.7,48,750/-, which was a cheque payment made by one of the assessee- firms to T.S.Asok

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

Gutta Venkata Rama Devi vs. The Income Tax Officer

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

34 of 171 + LA.AP. 1204/208 DEVENDER KUMAR TRIGUNA .Apelant Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus UOI & ANR. .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

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

34 of 171 + LA.AP. 1204/208 DEVENDER KUMAR TRIGUNA .Apelant Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus UOI & ANR. .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

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

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

34 of 171 + LA.AP. 1204/208 DEVENDER KUMAR TRIGUNA .Apelant Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus UOI & ANR. .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

M/s. Canara Securities Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO,T.AMARNATH GOUD

68 ; f. Ad interim order in terms of prayers above ; (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 28 of 300 g. Such further and/or other order or orders be passed and/or direction or directions be made as to this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper. GA/4/2021 (APO/92/2020) Prayer a. Injunction