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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

132(9A) and the part of documents were sent, therefore, the very inception of the proceeding in its entirety appears to be under the control of the DDIT (Inv.). 18. In the cross objection filed by the assessee, the substantial question of law was framed by this Court on 17-9-2014 that whether the ITAT erred

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

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

132(9A) and the part of documents were sent, therefore, the very inception of the proceeding in its entirety appears to be under the control of the DDIT (Inv.). 18. In the cross objection filed by the assessee, the substantial question of law was framed by this Court on 17-9-2014 that whether the ITAT erred

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

132(9A) and the part of documents were sent, therefore, the very inception of the proceeding in its entirety appears to be under the control of the DDIT (Inv.). 18. In the cross objection filed by the assessee, the substantial question of law was framed by this Court on 17-9-2014 that whether the ITAT erred

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

132(9A) and the part of documents were sent, therefore, the very inception of the proceeding in its entirety appears to be under the control of the DDIT (Inv.). 18. In the cross objection filed by the assessee, the substantial question of law was framed by this Court on 17-9-2014 that whether the ITAT erred

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

132 of the Act conducted at the office and residential premises of the assessee, a reassessment order was passed by the AO under Section 153A of the Act, whereby inter alia additions of various amounts were made under Section 68

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

The appeals are dismissed

132 of the Act conducted at the office and residential premises of the assessee, a reassessment order was passed by the AO under Section 153A of the Act, whereby inter alia additions of various amounts were made under Section 68

Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. M/S Sri Ramanjaneya Poultry Farm Pvt., Ltd.,

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

132(5) of the Act to the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner under Section (11) thereof which remedy she did not avail. Considering the whole gravamen of the plaintiff in the suit and the law on the subject, we are of the opinion that the Subordinate Judge and the High Court were not correct in rejecting the contention

Sunil Kumar Ahuja vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

68,34 appeal befor who vide his assessee file dated 23.09.2 3. incorrect in assessee, wh the assessee. Section 153A search. The i that proceedi found during 4. has relied on Meeta Gutgu challenge bef 5. that additions additions had Private Limi which had m purchase of l ultimate bene o. 97 of 2023 er Section 153A

PENDURTHI CHANDRASEKHAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The appeal is allowed and all the four substantial

68 of the Income Tax Act, is right in law in holding that there should be sufficient reasons for receiving gifts though it is from father-in-law and the gift is covered by the provisions of Section 56 of the Act? 2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Jyothi Wines,

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

68, proposing addition of unexplained credits; but eventually the additions were made under Section 69 as undisclosed investments. There was a further addition made of Rs.7,48,750/-, which was a cheque payment made by one of the assessee- firms to T.S.Asok, one of its partners, which was said to be refund of advance paid on a property

SHRI GYAN KUMAR AGARWAL (INDL) vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

132 of the Act were conducted at the residential premises of assessee namely Mr. Sunil Kumar Agarwal, his brother Mr. Gyan Kumar Agarwal and other members of his family. ln the said Search and seizure operation, photo copies of share certificates of M/s. Jivika Leasing and Finance Limited were noticed. The said share certificates are in the name

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s.ZENOTECH LABORATORIES LIMITED

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

68 of the Act is warranted. 15. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.” 4. Further, the conclusion reached in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kabul Chawla, (2016) 380 ITR 573 was summarized in PCIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia, (2017) 82 taxmann.com 287 Del. The relevant portion of the judgment passed

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

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

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

Section 178 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the Chairman of the company, HVL cannot arrogate unto himself the power to cause such appointment when such power ultimately rests with the Board of Directors. The observation of the two Joint APLs that the evident performance of BCrL, the flagship company of MP Birla Group is deteriorating ever since

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

132 (APHC) ■* (2001) 32 APSTJ 124 (APHC) ^(1995) 98 STC 144 (APHC) "(1997) 24 APSTJ 51 (APHC) ’(1989) 8 APSTJ 148 (APHC) *(1995)96 STC 355 (SC) 10 RNT, J & HN, J TREVC. No. 83 of 2008 & batch Analysis: 14. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. Question

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

132 21 Inspector Report of Room No.10 dt. 20.1.07 Ext.Ka 135 22 Inspector Report of Room No.12, dt. 13 Ext.Ka 139 11 20.1.07 23 Inspector Report of Room No.14 dt. 20.1.07 Ext.Ka 144 24 Inspector Report of Room No.15 dt. 20.1.07 Ext.Ka 148 25 Inspector Report of Room No.16 dt. 20.1.07 Ext.Ka 154 26 Inspector Report of Room No.17

The Commissioner of Income-Tax - VI, vs. Shri Mekala Bal Reddy

132 to place a proposal that in a case in which any general exception in the I.P.C is pleaded by the accused and evidence is adduced to support such a plea, but such evidence fails to satisfy the Court affirmatively that the accused had fully established his plea of the claimed exception, he would still be entitled for acquittal