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

The appeal is allowed

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

3 also noted that the post-trap formalities were observed by PW-6. xii. PW-4, acting as the Superintendent of South Nadia at Kalyani Bidhan Park Post Office, affirmed his authority to approve the initiation of legal action against a staff member categorized as Group ‘D’ within the mentioned post office. The authorization document dated 27.3.1997, issued

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

The Commissioner of Income TAx-IV, vs. M/s. Mahaveer Enterprises (India) Limited

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

section (1), the competent authority shall determine the nature and extent of such claims and pass such orders as it deems fit. (3) At any time after the publication of the notification under sub-section (1) the competent authority may, by notification published in the Official Gazette of the State concerned, declare that the excess vacant land referred

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S. SIVARAMA REDDY

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

3) and (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

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

Appeal is dismissed,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

13 (2) of the Act, 1988. The respondent/accused officer was working as Income Tax Officer, Ward-ll, Vizianagaram at the relevant point of time of the incident. There is no dispute that he was a public servant within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of the PC Act, 1988. 17. Ex.PIO is the order issued by P.W4, Commissioner

M/s. Maruthi Movies vs. Income Tax Officer

Bench: This Court & Making The Same A Rule Of Court, Alongwith Decree Against Respondents Awarding Rs.5,35,920/- Paid By The Petitioner To The Arbitrator As Their Share Of Fees As Per Order Dated 21.12.2010. 2. Respondent No.1 Has Filed Its Objections To The Award Under Section 30 & 33 Of The Act In Form Of I.A. No.9067/2011. Respondent No.2 Has Also Filed Its Objections To The Award.

13. Therefore, the answer to the question whether an agreement which is styled as a development agreement is specifically enforceable under the said Act of 1963 depends upon the nature of the agreement. The said question is required to be decided by applying relevant statutory provisions in Chapter II and especially Section

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

68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the [Assessing] Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the income

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

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

13-2-2013, which have already been quoted in para 4 (G) of this judgment. 20 (1987) 4 SCC 611 37 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 43. The principal argument of the assessee is that all these orders were passed by the AO at the dictate of the superior authority whereas according to the Revenue

C. SANYASI RAJU vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIZAG.

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

13-2-2013, which have already been quoted in para 4 (G) of this judgment. 20 (1987) 4 SCC 611 37 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 43. The principal argument of the assessee is that all these orders were passed by the AO at the dictate of the superior authority whereas according to the Revenue

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.Samrakshna Electricals Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

13-2-2013, which have already been quoted in para 4 (G) of this judgment. 20 (1987) 4 SCC 611 37 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 43. The principal argument of the assessee is that all these orders were passed by the AO at the dictate of the superior authority whereas according to the Revenue

M/s.GVK Petro Chemicals Private Limited,(Novo Resins AND vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,

13-2-2013, which have already been quoted in para 4 (G) of this judgment. 20 (1987) 4 SCC 611 37 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 43. The principal argument of the assessee is that all these orders were passed by the AO at the dictate of the superior authority whereas according to the Revenue

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-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, 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

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

3 of Rs.20,96,65,679/- and domestic sales of Rs.58,34,015/-. The assessing officer increased the GP Rate from the disclosed rate of 4.6% to 6% and thus, made an addition of Rs.30,19,867/- in the income of the assessee. 6. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed first appeal before the CIT(A), who determined the GP Rate

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

13,827/-* 31.10.2013 H. 09.08.2010 3 years 3,75,000/- 23.05.2013 I. 09.04.2011 14 years 3,75,000/- 09.12.2014 J. 14.05.2011 17 years 4,20,000/- 13.12.2012 K. 30.06.2011 10 years 6,68,520/-* 26.04.2014 L. 02.10.2011 11 years 3,75,000/- 31.05.2014 M. 02.05.2012 14 years 3,75,000/- 29.09.2014 N. 04.02.2013 4 years 3,75,000/- 29.07.2013 * excluding

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

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

3 of 12 8. In the Codicil Ex.OW1/4, on the other hand, the bequest made to Sh.Dinesh Bahl in the Will dated 12.08.1986 has been transferred to his son, Sh.Rajiv Bahl on account of poor health of Sh.Dinesh Bahl i.e. the front portion stands bequeathed to S/Shri Ashok Bahl and Rajiv Bahl. All other assets were divided equally amongst S/Shri