The Commissioner of Income TAx-IV, vs. M/s. Mahaveer Enterprises (India) Limited

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

section (1), the competent authority shall determine the nature and extent of such claims and pass such orders as it deems fit. (3) At any time after the publication of the notification under sub-section (1) the competent authority may, by notification published in the Official Gazette of the State concerned, declare that the excess vacant land referred

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

68 of the Act or for that matter for taking action under Sections 131/133(6) of the Act and simply proceeded to decide the appeal of the appellant/assessee against the mandate of the aforesaid provisions of law. 10. Accordingly, the impugned Orders passed by the ITAT and the CIT(A) affirming the Assessment Order passed

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

6. To maintain for the members of the company liaison with organization/s interested in Pollution Control and Environment Management and such activities in furtherance of the objects of the Company such as Chamber of Commerce, Government departments, Management Associations Trade Associations etc. in the State Country and abroad. 7. To collaborate and co-operate with other professional institutions and with

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

6 10. We find that while passing the assessment order dated 31.12.2007 under Section 143(3) of the Act 1961, the assessing officer himself noted that the assessee on being enquired about the nature of transaction with the Mumbai companies submitted on oath on 15.12.2006 before the DDIT (I&B), Kolkata that he has got cash of equivalent amount

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

Section v.. V 11(1). 6. Initially we were inclined to accept the submission raised by the Revenue that there are several good reasons why we have declined to interfere and refer the matter to a larger bench to consider judgment of this Court in DIT vs. Vishwa Jagriti Mission, ITA No.140/2012 (Del.). 7. The controversy in question

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

Section 68 of the Act, 1961 is quite correct and it 6 does not give rise to any substantial question of law. The finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard is the findings of fact. Discussion & Findings: 11

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

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 movable and 20 immovable properties which were joint in nature. The said Muniswamiappa died on 03.09.1935. After the demise

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

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

6. As per Codicil (Ex.P-2) Shri Dinesh Bahl has been excluded completely from the estate of Smt. Ram Piari and the entire front portion of Kautalya Marg property has been bequeathed to Sh.Ashok Bahl. Consequently, the appellants are now not entitled to any share of the property in question. Further all other assets have been divided equally between S/Shri Rajneesh

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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

11 explanation offered by the assessee for the cash credits received from Dr.K.P.Ali was accepted is not a relevant factor. It is further contended that the Assessing Officer had made the addition in accordance with section 68 as the assessee had failed to offer proper explanation for the NRI receipts. 6

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

section 4 (1) of the Act of 2012. 52. It is in this factual matrix that we are considering the issues that have fallen for decision in these batch of matters. 34 53. In holding that the Entry Tax Act, 2012 was ultra vires the Constitution of India, learned Single Judge, in the impugned judgement and order dated June

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

6 or sub-section (1) or clause (b) of 40 RNT, J & HN, J TREVC. No. 83 of 2008 & batch sub-section (2) of Section 8 with reference to the tax payable under the CST Act by a dealer on his turnover in so far as the turnover or any part thereof relates to sale or purchase

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

6 of 13 in this behalf, the CIT(A) has given findings on the contents of the additional evidence. In our view, all these circumstances lead to a conclusion that CIT(A) considered the additional evidence and gave a finding on merits against assessee. Thus, the consideration of additional evidence by CIT(A) appears to be inbuilt in the order

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

The appeals are dismissed

6 of 13 in this behalf, the CIT(A) has given findings on the contents of the additional evidence. In our view, all these circumstances lead to a conclusion that CIT(A) considered the additional evidence and gave a finding on merits against assessee. Thus, the consideration of additional evidence by CIT(A) appears to be inbuilt in the order

Pinna Nageswara RAo, vs. Commissioner of Income tax, IV (A.P)

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

6 of 171 Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. + LA.APP. 338/2015, CM APPL. 2671/2016 & 41910/2016 FAKIR CHAND (DECEASED) THR LRS & ORS .....Appellants Through: Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Deepak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with

PRL COMMR OF INCOME TAX-7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S SRI VENKATESWARA PADMAVATHI COMPAY, KHAMMAM DIST

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

6 of 171 Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. + LA.APP. 338/2015, CM APPL. 2671/2016 & 41910/2016 FAKIR CHAND (DECEASED) THR LRS & ORS .....Appellants Through: Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Deepak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with

Kuchipudi Krishna Kishore vs. THE DCIT, CIR-2[1],

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

6 of 171 Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. + LA.APP. 338/2015, CM APPL. 2671/2016 & 41910/2016 FAKIR CHAND (DECEASED) THR LRS & ORS .....Appellants Through: Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Deepak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with

Commissioner of Income Tax -II, vs. M/S Kasila Farms Ltd.,

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

6 of 171 Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. + LA.APP. 338/2015, CM APPL. 2671/2016 & 41910/2016 FAKIR CHAND (DECEASED) THR LRS & ORS .....Appellants Through: Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Deepak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with

THE PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. L. SURYAKANTHAM, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

6 of 171 Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. + LA.APP. 338/2015, CM APPL. 2671/2016 & 41910/2016 FAKIR CHAND (DECEASED) THR LRS & ORS .....Appellants Through: Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Deepak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with