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

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

5 CIT(A) in the respondent/assessee invoking Section 68 of the Act, 1961. He referred to provisions of Section 68 of the Act, 1961 and relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-1) Vs. NRA Iron And Steel Private Limited (2019) 15 SCC 529 (paragraphs

SYED ABBAS MIAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-I,KURNOOL

10 (SC) (State of Telengana and Others vs. Tirumala Construction) held that section 19 of the 101st Amendment did not prescribe any limitation for the legislation but circumscribed a time limit. 16. Learned Advocate General has contended that, the State was within its powers to amend the Entry Tax Act, 2012 by the West 19 Bengal Finance

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

5 SCC 583, para 62 : 2 SCEC 577] , by reiterating that a legislation must further its objectives and not create any confusion or friction in the system. If the ordinary meaning of the text of such law is non-conducive for the objects sought to be achieved, it must be interpreted accordingly to remedy such deficiency.” 52. In Bajaj Auto

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. Dr. T.Ravi Kumar

The appeal is disposed of

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that since, the assessee does not fall within scope and ambit of Section 11(1)(a) of the 8 Act, the income of the assessee has to be computed in accordance with other provisions of the Act. It is further submitted that total income of the assessee

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

5 Section 68 of the Act, 1961 is totally arbitrary and illegal. She further submits that the finding recorded by the Tribunal with respect to the cheques and the bank account, is perverse inasmuch as the cheques received by the assessee in consideration of the jewellery sold are of a different bank account and not the bank account which

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 [TDS] vs. M/s.KCIL-MEIL [JV]

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10. The Special Government Pleader contends that Section 55 is part of Chapter VII of the Act. Chapter VII deals with the Appeals, Revisions, and Settlement of cases under the Act. Right of appeal is a statutory remedy and is inherent in a OT.REV 212/2015 -23- litigant to file appeal. The Act provides the right of appeal, the forum

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

5. Mr. S. Rajeshwar Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/assessee, submits that the assessee had disclosed the names of one Ms. Seema R. Mutreja from whom Rs.2,50,000/- was borrowed by him and one Mr. Anil Dengwani from whom he had borrowed Rs.18,20,000/-. Notice under Section 133(6) of the Act was issued only

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

5) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is perverse and arbitrary? (6) What order or decree? 9. Point No.1: It is the case of the plaintiffs that Muniswamiappa @ Ammojappa as well as his four sons namely Munipapaiah, Ramaiah, Muniappa and Venkataswamy constitute an undivided Hindu joint family and they were having substantial

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

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

5. Smt. Ram Piari executed a Will dated 12.08.1996, whereby she bequeathed the rear portion of the house at Kautalya Marg to Shri Rajneesh Bahl and the front portion jointly to S/Shri Ashok Bahl and Dinesh Bahl. All movables were divided in equal shares amongst the three sons. Shri Ashok Bahl was appointed the Executor of the said Will

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

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

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Shri Raaj Kumar Jain

68 11.01.07 Following FIRS are re-registered by the CBI. The accused are taken into CBI custody. Victim RC No. 2(S)/07/SCB/DLI 'A' RC No. 3(S)/07/SCB/DLI 'B' RC No. 6(S)/07/SCB/DLI 'C' RC No. 5(S)/07/SCB/DLI 'D' RC No. 9(S)/07/SCB/DLI 'E' RC No. 7(S)/07/SCB/DLI 'F' RC No. 8(S)/07/SCB/DLI

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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 68 will be attracted only when the assessee offers no explanation or the explanation so offered is not satisfactory to the Assessing Officer. It was found that in the present case assessee had established the identity of the creditor, the source for the credit and the genuineness of the transaction and had thereby discharged the initial burden

Commissioner of Income Tax-i, vs. Agricultural Market Committee

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar

5 LIC Survival Benefits `28,000.00 6 Dividend Received on shares `3,595.00 7 Sale of Site Coimbatore `2,32,000.00 8 Gift received from father `2,68,000 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