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

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-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

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

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

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

Section 178 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the Chairman of the company, HVL cannot arrogate unto himself the power to cause such appointment when such power ultimately rests with the Board of Directors. The observation of the two Joint APLs that the evident performance of BCrL, the flagship company of MP Birla Group is deteriorating ever since

THEE COMMSSR.OF INCOME TAX.HYD. vs. CHALLA SHANKER REDDY.HYD.

Bench: L.NARASIMHA REDDY,T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

115 of 20O6 hled the C'C'C'A'No'120 of 2013 (Partition Appeal) I 15 before this oourt on 1 I .09.2013. The respondents filer1 ()r,rss -objections in the said A.p oea I 40. A co-rrr,linate Bench of this court passed an ad ir terim order in the Partition A.pp:al (c.c.c.A.No. 12o of 2o131on

COMMR.OF I.T. RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/S.NARAYANA CHOWDARYAND ORS KAKINADA

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

115 of 20O6 hled the C'C'C'A'No'120 of 2013 (Partition Appeal) I 15 before this oourt on 1 I .09.2013. The respondents filer1 ()r,rss -objections in the said A.p oea I 40. A co-rrr,linate Bench of this court passed an ad ir terim order in the Partition A.pp:al (c.c.c.A.No. 12o of 2o131on

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - (TDS), vs. M/s. Suman Chit Funds (P) Ltd.,

115 of 20O6 hled the C'C'C'A'No'120 of 2013 (Partition Appeal) I 15 before this oourt on 1 I .09.2013. The respondents filer1 ()r,rss -objections in the said A.p oea I 40. A co-rrr,linate Bench of this court passed an ad ir terim order in the Partition A.pp:al (c.c.c.A.No. 12o of 2o131on

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

Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused has denied his implication in the case/offence and has claimed that he was tortured and that his nails were extracted, his genitals were burnt and petrol was put in his anus. He offered to get himself medically examined to prove his allegations. The accused SK also claimed that he was extended other tortures

The Commissioner of Income-Tax - VI, vs. Shri Mekala Bal Reddy

68. Submission is that the prompt report of the incident by the accused persons naming the assailants therein, who are prosecution witnesses herein and the injury reports of the accused appellants proved by the doctor examined as P.W-4, in addition to the defence taken by them under Section 313 Cr.P.C is sufficient proof of the plea of the accused

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

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Hycons Infrastructure (India) Ltd.

The appeals are dismissed

115. It appears that the doctrine of promissory estoppel and its scope and ambit is by now well settled and the same can be summarised as under: (1) The doctrine of promissory estoppel is to be treated as a preserved right, b ut such right is subject to the limitation that - (2) Such promise or the representation made must

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s. BDR Projects Pvt. Ltd.

68. There is also merit in the contention of the Petitioners that Section 28(11) confers validity only on „the proper officer.‟ As explained in Consolidated Coffee Ltd. v. Coffee Board (supra), the use of article „the‟ as opposed to „an‟ or „any‟ is indeed significant. Only officers who have been assigned the functions of the „proper officer

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

68,589/- with the Registry on 01.09.2018, in purported compliance of orders dated 24.07.2018 read with 21.08.2018. 7. On 10.09.2018, Court appointed M/s PN Chopra & Co. as a Valuer to ascertain the realizable value of the assets mentioned in the two affidavits filed by the petitioner. On 23.10.2018, the Valuer submitted its Report. 8. On 24.12.2018, the petitioner deposited

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. K. V. Srinivasa Rao

Section 145 of the Evidence Act. If a contradiction is put to the witness and it is denied by him, then his attention has to be drawn to the statement made by such witness before the Police or any other previous statement and he must be given a reasonable opportunity to explain as to why such contradiction appears

Dr.D. Siva Sankara Rao-HUF vs. I.T.O. Ward-2, Eluru

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 4 of the LA Act. 19.4.1 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 submits that so far as concerns the testimony of PW-3, Mr. Vinod Kumar (purchaser of land), the same is to be rejected as PW-3 himself admits that he was not an income tax payee in 1988 nor did he inform about purchasing

P.V.S.Raju vs. The Addl. C.I.T.

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

Section 4 of the LA Act. 19.4.1 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 submits that so far as concerns the testimony of PW-3, Mr. Vinod Kumar (purchaser of land), the same is to be rejected as PW-3 himself admits that he was not an income tax payee in 1988 nor did he inform about purchasing

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires