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

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

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

D. Sanjeevayija v. Election Tribunal, Andhra'.Pradesh and others,. AIR 1967 Sc 1211, their Lordships have expressed thus: "(4) We are unable to accept the argument of the • .. appellant as correct. In our opinion, the provisions of • . 5.150 of the Act must be'interpreted in the context of Sections 8 14 and 98(c) and other relevant provisions

Commissioner of Income Tax-i, vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

D) through LR's Vs. State of A.P, it was :: 14 :: submitted that the loans and gifts received by the petitioner would not constitute "known sources of income" as defined under Section 13(1) (e) of the Act. 10. The expression "known sources of income" in Section 13(1) (e) of the Act has two elements, first

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

13 relates to natural oleoresins, Chapter 33 contains other resinoids. 65. The word 'excisable goods', has been defined by Clause (d) of Section 2 to mean, 'goods' specified in the Schedule. That is why Section 3 levies duty on all excisable goods mentioned in the Schedule provided they are produced and manufactured. The tariff schedule, by placing

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

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

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

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

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

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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S. SIVARAMA REDDY

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

D G M E N T V. KAMESWAR RAO, J CM No. 41572/2017 (for taking the additional documents on record) & CM No. 41573/2017 (for permission to file LPA against the judgment and order dated 31.8.2017 in WP(C) 2217/2016) in LPA 733/2017 For the reasons stated in the applications, the same are allowed and disposed of. LPAs 733/2017 & 734/2017 1

The Commissioner of Income Tax - I vs. M/s. BBL Foods (Earlier Amber Biscuits P Ltd.)

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

13(2) of PC Act, and Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC. The allegation against him was that, Sri.Joy, who Mat.Appeal No.242 of 2012 & conn. cases 15 was a real estate broker, hatched a criminal conspiracy with A1, Bank Manager of Union Bank of India, Cherpu branch, A13 Sri.K.T Thomas, a Chartered Accountant,and A14 Sri.G. Jyothi

The Commissioner of Income Tax I vs. M/s. Bhagiradha Chemicals AND Industries Ltd.,

The appeal is disposed of

68,953/- under normal provisions and book- profit of Rs.9,85,25,142/-. Tax was payable on book profits as per Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short). The aforementioned return was taken up for scrutiny and additions of Rs.1,00,500/- and Rs.1,17,141/- on substantive basis, and Rs.10 lacs on protective basis

EVEREST ORGANICS LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF I.T., HYDERABAD

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

D) Reference is made to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of CIT v K.V. Krishnaswamy Naidu6, to submit that the authorised officer, the Director (Inv.), was only confined to carry out search and seizure, but was not the Income- Tax Officer who could pass an order under sub-section (5) of Section