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

The appeal is allowed

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

8 series. After receiving the money, the appellant 54 placed it in his T-shirt's book pocket, with PW-5 allegedly overhearing the conversation between PW-2 and the appellant. vii. Upon completion of the transaction, PW-2 signaled the C.B.I. officers by rubbing his face with a handkerchief, prompting the apprehension of the appellant, who confessed

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

Appeal is dismissed,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

8 the prosecution case. Although P,W2, who the date of the incident, corroborated to the evidence of P.W1 discrepancies in the evidence of material their entire evidence cannot be thrown out accompanied P.W1 on was .sent outside, his evidence is When there are some prosecution witnesses, on such discrepancies, and such part of their testimony which inspires confidence

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 vs. Dr. T.Ravi Kumar

The appeal is disposed of

Section 263 of the Act firstly, the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and secondly, that it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on account of error in the order of assessment. 8. The aforesaid provision was considered by the Supreme Court in MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD.I supra and it was held that the phrase ‘prejudicial

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

8. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the paper book. 9. The entire submission of learned counsel for the appellant is with regard to the applicability of Section 68 of the Act 1961 on facts of the present case. Therefore, before proceeding to consider the submission, it would be appropriate

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-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

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-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 and the findings of the Tribunal to this extent is arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse ? Re: Substantial question of law No.(i) 7 13. We find that the Tribunal itself has recorded a finding that sale turn-over of the assessee has substantially increased during the assessment year in question. No material has been produced

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

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

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

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

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

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 Rajneesh Bahl, Ashok

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

8 of 13 the non-filing of bank statements of shareholders. The assessing officer has a quasi judicial duty to weigh the quality of evidence produced before it and if it is sufficient to discharge the burden of assessee, the same cannot be cryptically disregarded in the pretext of document which was not filed by the assessee.” 9. It then

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

The appeals are dismissed

8 of 13 the non-filing of bank statements of shareholders. The assessing officer has a quasi judicial duty to weigh the quality of evidence produced before it and if it is sufficient to discharge the burden of assessee, the same cannot be cryptically disregarded in the pretext of document which was not filed by the assessee.” 9. It then

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