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

M/s National Academy of Construction, vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax (Exemptions)-I,

68 years, b/c Oswal, r/o Jain Street, Sarafa Bazar, House No. 67, Jwala Vihar, Jodhpur (Raj). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan Through P P ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.K. Singhi Sr. Adv. With Mr. O.P. Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.S. Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G R MOOLCHANDANI Order 10/09/2018 This petition is directed against the order

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

Bench: L.NARASIMHA REDDY,T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

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 oir.1 1.2o 3 suspending the impugned jr-ulgment

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

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

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 oir.1 1.2o 3 suspending the impugned jr-ulgment

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

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 oir.1 1.2o 3 suspending the impugned jr-ulgment

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

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

68 of 300 Section 2(55) of the said Act that is a person whose name is entered in the Register of Members or the beneficial owner in the records of the depository. It is submitted that in the instant case even by the respondent’s own showing since the estate does not hold or even control directly

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX vs. M/S V.SATAYANARAYANA

The appeal is allowed

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

120-B IPC. 8. The High Court upon reappreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the said Act. 5 (2009) 3 SCC 779 18 14. An analysis of the evidence

Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Visakhapatnam vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Paderu

Appeal stands dismissed,

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

120 (Jhar) as also the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chunni Lal, (1995) 211 ITR 11 (ST) SC. 6. Learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue Smt. Archana Shahi opposed the appeal and placed before us the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central

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

120-B IPC was registered on 30.12.2006 at 6.15 pm and later re-registered as RC.14(S)/07/SCB/DLI dated 11.01.2007, at 2.00 pm, upon the investigation getting transferred to the CBI. During course of investigation the involvement of accused appellant SK surfaced in the matter. Recovery of 75 bones of different sizes etc. were made apart from other materials from

COMMR.OF I.T. A.P.I HYD vs. DIAMOND HATCHERIES (P) LTD

Appeal is allowed

68 of 2001 Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana ...Appellant Versus M/s Highway Cycle Industries Ltd., Ludhiana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Hyderabad House Pvt Ltd.,

120 is yet another case relied upon by the insurance companies. It arose out of death of a minor (fourteen years‟ old boy), the claim having been preferred under section 166 of MV Act by his parents, the accident having occurred on 05-02-1997. The tribunal awarded the amount of rupees one lakh with interest and the appeal

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]; Chirukandan[10]). Accepting the submission of Mr. Sandeep Narain, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioners, that natural produce can never be subjected to duty under the Excise Act, would obliterate the distinction between the words “production” and “manufacture”, and would also render several Chapter Notes and Entries, in the First Schedule to the Tariff Act, inapposite surplussage

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

The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Vaishnavi Educational Society

In the result, this Cross Objection is allowed and the suit is

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

120-B of the I.P.C.; and the Vithura Police has also registered a crime as crime No.284/2008 in this regard. 11. The document Nos.1126/2008, 1127/2008 and 1201/2008 are ab initio void; for the reason that the same are not supported by consideration and good faith. The said documents are nothing but the outcome of the fraud and criminal conspiracy committed