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

Section 68 of the 1872 Act, it has to be assuredly construed harmoniously therewith and not divorced therefrom with a mutilative bearing. This underlying principle is inter alia embedded in the decision of this Court in the 31 Commission of Income Tax Versus Ajax Products Limited.” 12

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

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

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

Section 68 of the Evidence Act?” FAO No. 327/2007 Page 9 of 12 21. While replying the first question

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

12-02-2025] 1. The present appeal preferred by the appellant/ assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was admitted for hearing on 1.9.2022 by formulating the following substantial questions of law:- 2/9 (Tax Case No. 63 of 2022) "1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Income Tax Appellate

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. We have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and perused the records of appeal. 12

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Dr.Kodela Siva Prasada Rao

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 68 cannot be invoked. 9. Aggrieved thereby, the Revenue has filed the present appeal before this Court. 10. Heard Sri B.Narasimha Sarma, learned counsel for the Revenue at the stage of admission. 11. Sri Sarma contended that the Tribunal’s findings are contrary to law, material on record and vitiated by irregularities in exercise of jurisdiction, that

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

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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68 of the Income Tax Act makes it clear that the section would come into operation when there is credit of amounts in the books maintained by an assessee during the previous year and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of such credit; or, the explanation ITA.No.283 of 2010 12

Commissioner of Incometax-1, Hyderabad vs. M/s. Divis Laboratories Ltd.,

The appeals are allowed

Section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1997. 12) By virtue thereof, in view of Section 68(1) of the Finance

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

12 of 13 16. In this analysis, a distillation of the precedents yields the following propositions of law in the context of Section 68

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

The appeals are dismissed

12 of 13 16. In this analysis, a distillation of the precedents yields the following propositions of law in the context of Section 68

Commissioner of Income Tax-V, vs. M/s.Sirveen Control Systems

Appeal is partly allowed

12 schedule property. Ex.P.8 - impugned gift deed dated 06.12.2005. In the recitals, it is stated that defendant no.1 intended to gift ½ share in the demise property in favour of donees. In the schedule of gift deed - Ex.P.8 entire ground floor of ‘A’ schedule property and entire ‘B’ schedule property is gifted in favour of defendants no. 2 and 3 equally

SRS AND Sri Sai Ganesh Productions vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Central)

Section 68, 69 and 69A as unexplained cash credits and investments. Considering the fact that the entire transactions were hawala transactions, commission at the rate 2% was also assessed as income of the assessee. The First Appellate Authority and the Tribunal confirmed it, against which the present appeal is filed. For the year 2004-05, the entire amounts deposited

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [TDS] vs. M/s.KCIL-MEIL [JV]

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68, section 69 and section 70 passed by an authority empowered to do so under this Act not being an authority above the rank of an Assistant Commissioner may, within a period of thirty days from the date on which the order was served on him, appeal against such order, xxx xxx xxx (5) In disposing

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S. SIVARAMA REDDY

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

68)/SFRC/14- 15/9728 dated 19.02.2016” (viii) It was in this scenario that the Association challenged the impugned Notification, mainly contending that the SFRC recommendations once having been accepted, and notified, exercise of power rescinding the same was arbitrary and illegal, and therefore the rescinding order had necessarily to be set aside. LPA 733/2017 and connected matter Page

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

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: u)e answer the reference holding

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

68-C of the old Act, pending on the date of enforcement of the new Act, namely, 1.7.1989, • the period of one year as prescribed under S. 100(4) should be computed from the date of commencement of the new Act. This interpretation would give full effect to • both. the Sections

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