The Commissioner of Income -Tax - III, vs. Shri Taher Ali

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

11. Purushottamdas Bangur Vs Dayanand Gupta, (2012) 10 SCC 409 and in particular paras 15 and 22; 12. Babu Manmohan Das Shah vs Bishun Das,AIR 1967 SC 643; 13. Om Prakash Vs. Amar Singh, (1987) 1 SCC 458, 14. Brijendra Nath Bhargava Vs. Harsh Wardhan, (1988) (1) SCC 454. 21 / 79 CRA-322-08gr 29. Mr. Walawalkar further

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

Section 2 (1) (e) of the A.P.General Sales Tax Act 1957, which defined the word 'dealer' was for consideration. There was inbuilt expression "deeming provision" in the said 27 (2007) 9 see 55 AIR 1967 Se389 (1988) 2 see 299 28 29 42 RNT, J & HN, J TREVC. No. 83 of 2008 & batch Explanation. So, the Explanation IV also

The Commissioner of Income Tax - IV vs. M/s. Mekins Agro Product (P) Ltd.

68, the Calcutta High Court, while constructing the expression " expenditure incurred " in s. 44A of the Act, observed: "depreciation claimed shall include the expenditure incurred." There are only two recognised methods of accounting : (1) cash basis, and (ii) mercantile basis. Under the cash basis only cash transactions are recorded. It is only cash receipts and cash (U payments which find

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/s. Murala Venkateswara Rao AND others

Appeal is dismissed,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused officer contended that there is no corroboration in the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses and their evidence does not connect SRK,J Crl.A.No.190 of 2007 9 the respondent/accused officer with the offences alleged. He submits that in view of the inconsistent versions in the evidence of P.W1 with

M/S. GAUTAMI POWER LIMITED vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

D. Sanjeevayija v. Election Tribunal, Andhra'.Pradesh and others,. AIR 1967 Sc 1211, their Lordships have expressed thus: "(4) We are unable to accept the argument of the • .. appellant as correct. In our opinion, the provisions of • . 5.150 of the Act must be'interpreted in the context of Sections 8 14 and 98(c) and other relevant provisions

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

Section 2(15) of the Act?. 44. We are dealing with a taxing statute. The intention of the legislature in a taxation statute is to be gathered from the language of the provisions particularly where the language is plain and unambiguous. In a Taxing Act, it is not possible to assume any intention or the governing purpose

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

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

68,280/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) on account of inaccurate particulars furnished by assessee in original return and detected by the Assessing Officer during scrutiny u/s 143(3)?” 3. The counsel for the appellant and the assessee has taken us to the judgment of ITAT which held as under:- We have heard rival submissions and considered them carefully. After

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed

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

68. 1973 KLT 463 69. (1988) 69 STC 29 (Kerala DB) 70. 36 LJQB 81 71. (1954) 5 STC 348 (T-C) 72. (1955) 2 SCR 374 73. (1895) Q.B. 749 74. 15 Ves. 396, 406 75. 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 646 76. AIR 1960 SC 610 77. (1999) 6 SCC 275 78. (2015) 5 SCC 718 79. (2000) 1

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

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

D) through LR's Vs. State of A.P, it was :: 14 :: submitted that the loans and gifts received by the petitioner would not constitute "known sources of income" as defined under Section 13(1) (e) of the Act. 10. The expression "known sources of income" in Section 13(1) (e) of the Act has two elements, first

Commissioner of Income Tax- IT and TP vs. M/s. Louis Berger International Inc.,

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

68, on the date on which [a bill of entry for home consumption in respect of such goods is presented under that section]; (c) in the case of any other goods, on the date of payment of duty: [PROVIDED that if a bill of entry has been presented before the date of entry inwards of the vessel

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s. Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

68, on the date on which [a bill of entry for home consumption in respect of such goods is presented under that section]; (c) in the case of any other goods, on the date of payment of duty: [PROVIDED that if a bill of entry has been presented before the date of entry inwards of the vessel

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), vs. M/s Country Club Inda Limited

d) an Installation PE in terms of Article 5(2)(k) of the Indo-US DTAA; (e) a Service PE in terms of Article 5(2)(l) ITA 666/2014 & Ors. Page 17 of 57 of the Indo-US DTAA; and (f) a Dependent Agent PE in terms of Article 5(4) of the Indo-US DTAA. 25. Insofar

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

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

11 or Section 12 applg, if any such amount is cred.ited to tLrc profit and loss account. " 18. This court while gone through tl-re judgments relied upon by both counsels. In Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai Vs. M/s Dilip Kumar and Compang & Others (2"d supra) it is held as urtder : 52. to sum up, under

Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

68 Years, Occ Household, R/o. 14-'l-363, New Agapura, Hyderabad. 4. Saranga Pavan Kumar, S/o. Late Saranga Krishna Murthy, Aged about 42 Years. Occ. Business, R/o. 14-1-363, NewAgapura, Hyderabad. 5. A. Manjula, Wo. A Madhusudhan, Aged about 49 Years, Occ Household, Rlo.5-2-544, Osman Gunj, Risala Abdulla, Nampaily. Hyderabad. 6. Bande Vani, Wo. Bande Srinivas, Aged about

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agrilcultural Market Committee

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

68 Years, Occ Household, R/o. 14-'l-363, New Agapura, Hyderabad. 4. Saranga Pavan Kumar, S/o. Late Saranga Krishna Murthy, Aged about 42 Years. Occ. Business, R/o. 14-1-363, NewAgapura, Hyderabad. 5. A. Manjula, Wo. A Madhusudhan, Aged about 49 Years, Occ Household, Rlo.5-2-544, Osman Gunj, Risala Abdulla, Nampaily. Hyderabad. 6. Bande Vani, Wo. Bande Srinivas, Aged about

The Commissioner of Income Tax I vs. M/s. Bhagiradha Chemicals AND Industries Ltd.,

The appeal is disposed of

68,953/- under normal provisions and book- profit of Rs.9,85,25,142/-. Tax was payable on book profits as per Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short). The aforementioned return was taken up for scrutiny and additions of Rs.1,00,500/- and Rs.1,17,141/- on substantive basis, and Rs.10 lacs on protective basis