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

13.] Nevertheless, in a situation where there is ambiguity in the meaning of the text, the courts must also give due regard to the consequences of the interpretation taken. 21. It is the responsibility of the courts to interpret the text in a marmer which eliminates any element of hardship, inconvenience, injustice, absurdity or anomaly. [G.P. Singh on Principles

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

Appeal is dismissed,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1) (d) (ii) of the PC Act, 1988, if a public servant, by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, he is guilty 16. SRK,J Crl.A.No.190 of 2007 13 of criminal misconduct punishable under Section 13

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-i, vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act (‘PC Act’ for short), and been sentenced for simple imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.50,000/- with default imprisonment for six months. 2. The accused was working as the manager of Canara Bank, Sindhaghatta Branch, Mandya District, during the check period 1.5.2004 to 9.5.2006. The investigation that followed

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

13. Consequently, on 16th April 1994, the Collector of Customs (Preventive) issued SCN calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why the goods under seizure valued at Rs. 1,04,118.52 should not be confiscated, and customs duty in the sum of Rs. 5,07,274 should not be levied in terms of Section 28 (1

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed

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

Section 5(1) of the Tariff Act, (in terms of which excise duty was imposed upon the goods mentioned in Chapter 13), have been assailed; and the learned Single Judge has erred in holding that the levy and collection of excise duty, on oleo- resin, is illegal. Reliance is placed by Sri Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel, on Uttar Pradesh

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

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

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

13 of 57 17. According to the AO, the Assessee was ―a shadow company of Nortel Group.‖ 18. On the basis of its findings, the Assessee concluded that Nortel India and Nortel LO constituted the Assessee‘s PE in India (both Fixed Place PE as well as Dependent Agent PE). 19. In view of the finding that the Assessee

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

1, Kolkata which was dismissed by the CIT(A) by an order dated 30.12.2008. Aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), the respondent/assessee filed ITA 515(Kol) of 2009 before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, A-Bench, Kolkata which was partly allowed by an order dated 14.10.2009. The tribunal determined the income of the assessee at Rs.4

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

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

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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S. SIVARAMA REDDY

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

13) of section 6 of the said Act, the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi had notified the proposed fees for the academic year 2013- 2016 given by the State Fee Regulatory Committee for the academic year 2014- 2017 and for the year 2014-2018 for four years course and 2014-2019 for five years course respectively vide

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 Evidence Act. Thus the plaintiffs have failed to prove that Munipapaiah executed a Will dated 13.06.1956. In view of the above discussion, I answer point No.1 in negative. 13. Point No.2: Plaintiffs examined their power of attorney holder as PW-1. PW-1 has no personal knowledge about the case and he has clearly admitted

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

13 16. In this analysis, a distillation of the precedents yields the following propositions of law in the context of Section 68 of the Income Tax act. The assessee has to prima facie prove (1