Commissioner of Incometax-1, Hyderabad vs. M/s. Divis Laboratories Ltd.,

The appeals are allowed

3) For the assessment year 1994-95 and 1995-96, she did not file her regular return of income. 4) Notices were issued to her on 03.09.1996 and 08.08.1996 respectively under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the said assessment years, which were received by the Assessee on 11.09.1996 and 22.08.1996 respectively. 5) No return

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

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

3 Joint APLs and such inventory was made pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench dated 23rd August, 2012. Further, the Hon'ble Division Bench in the order dated 4th May, 2020 held that the unanimous report of Joint ALPs has not been disputed. Further, the inventory of assets records the share holding held by the estate

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

68. There is also merit in the contention of the Petitioners that Section 28(11) confers validity only on „the proper officer.‟ As explained in Consolidated Coffee Ltd. v. Coffee Board (supra), the use of article „the‟ as opposed to „an‟ or „any‟ is indeed significant. Only officers who have been assigned the functions of the „proper officer

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

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 dt. 20.1.07 Ext.Ka 162 27 Disclosure Statement dt. 13.1.07 Ext.Ka 1 28 Disclosure Statement dt. 11.1.07 Ext.Ka 70 29 Disclosure Statement dt. 18.1.07 Ext.Ka 34 30 Confession of Accused Surendra Koli

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Margadarshi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd.,

The appeal is dismissed

68 taxmann.com 334 wherein on ITA-228-2013 2023:PHHC:047619-DB 4 24.07.2009, a search was conducted and notice under Section 148 was issued to the appellant . In response to this notice, the assessee filed its return. However, the assessee did not produce supporting vouchers for expenses, details of purchases and stocks and copies of partners’ bank accounts

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. K. V. Srinivasa Rao

Section 145 of the Evidence Act. If a contradiction is put to the witness and it is denied by him, then his attention has to be drawn to the statement made by such witness before the Police or any other previous statement and he must be given a reasonable opportunity to explain as to why such contradiction appears

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

144 (AP) 26 RNT, J & HN, J TREVC. No. 83 of 2008 & batch previously held in Pinakini Seeds (supra). Consequently, the assessee was held entitled for exemption from tax on his turnover under the Central Sales Tax as well. 39. In M/s. Vinod Solvent Extracts Private Limited (supra) G.O.Ms.No.930, dated 28.07.1977 issued under Section 9 (1) of APGST

The Commissioner of Income Tax I, vs. M/s. Prasad Film Laboratories Ltd.,

68, First Floor, measuring 405 Sq. Ft. approximately @ Rs. 1.750/-per Sq. Ft. 3. The case of Mr. Aggarwal was that he paid the Respondent the entire consideration of Rs. 3.22 crores and was given possession of the aforementioned properties. Along with the petitions, Mr. Aggarwal filed photocopies of the said four agreements to sell along with photocopies of stamped

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.Sri Krishna Drugs Limited

In the result this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

144/-. In the regular scrutiny assessment, ITANo. 391/2012 Page 1of 5 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified substantial addition of Rs. 1,08,60,000/- was made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act for short) on account of share application money. It is apparent that there was substantial addition of Rs.81

The Pr. Commissioner of Income tax (Central), vs. Sri Vaishnavi Educational Society,

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.51929/2014 C/W W.P.Nos.42063/2012, 30494/2013, 42671/2013, 638/2014, 797/2014, 1089/2014, 3211/2014, 3389/2014, 6180/2014, 10356/2014, 12014/2014, 12015/2014, 13043/2014, 13045/2014, 13206/2014, 13207/2014, 13398/2014, 13774/2014, 14149/2014, 14161/2014, 14494/2014, 14502/2014, 14521/2014, 14689/2014, 16646/2014, 17051/2014, 17594/2014, 19729/2014, 21158/2014, 23897/2014, 28861/2014, 30731/2014, 31723/2014, 33774/2014, 33777/2014, 34084/2014, 34259/2014, 34272/2014, 34391/2014, 35204/2014, 35243/2014, 35247/2014, 35305/2014, 35609/2014, 36164/2014, 36166/2014, 36489/2014, 36525/2014, 36971/2014, 37446/2014, 38055/2014, 38463/2014, 38471/2014, 38472/2014, 38661/2014, 38753/2014, 39383/2014, 39633/2014, 39832/2014, 40204/2014, 40379/2014, 41394/2014, 41422/2014, 41427/2014, 41428/2014, 41858/2014, 43815/2014, 43963/2014, 44306/2014, 44527/2014, 44742/2014, 44835/2014, 45486/2014, 46766/2014, 47103/2014, 47105/2014, 47106/2014, 47107/2014, 47608/2014, 47731/2014, 47821/2014, 47860/2014, 47913/2014, 48577/2014, 48880/2014, 49567/2014, 50260/2014, 50533/2014, 51294/2014, 51930/2014, 51931/2014, 51932/2014, 52760/2014, 53854/2014, 54059/2014, 54083/2014, 54236/2014

3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE-560020 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.V. SHASHIKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI. M.N. RAMANJANEYA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. D.N. NANJUNDA REDDY, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. B.S. SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED

M/s Durga Granites, vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1,

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

3. The Director, Mines Directorate, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Yojna 2025:JHHC:29619-DB 52 Bhawan, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi-8334002 (Jharkhand), ........... Respondents. ----- With W.P.(C) No. 5078 of 2022 ----- Abhay Shankar Singh, aged about 34 years, son of Gajendra Pratap Singh, resident of Sanitoriyam Road, Tupudana Dungri

THEE COMMSSR.OF INCOME TAX.HYD. vs. CHALLA SHANKER REDDY.HYD.

Bench: L.NARASIMHA REDDY,T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

144, Road No.2 Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. ...PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT AND N Subash, S/o N.M.Choudary, Aged about 39 years, Occ. Business, R/o Plot No.'198, Road No.14, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. ..,DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT C|TY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NO: 120 ot 2O13 Regular Appeal under Section g6 of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree dated 28 03 2013 made in O.S No.115

COMMR.OF I.T. RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/S.NARAYANA CHOWDARYAND ORS KAKINADA

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

144, Road No.2 Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. ...PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT AND N Subash, S/o N.M.Choudary, Aged about 39 years, Occ. Business, R/o Plot No.'198, Road No.14, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. ..,DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT C|TY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NO: 120 ot 2O13 Regular Appeal under Section g6 of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree dated 28 03 2013 made in O.S No.115

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - (TDS), vs. M/s. Suman Chit Funds (P) Ltd.,

144, Road No.2 Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. ...PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT AND N Subash, S/o N.M.Choudary, Aged about 39 years, Occ. Business, R/o Plot No.'198, Road No.14, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. ..,DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT C|TY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NO: 120 ot 2O13 Regular Appeal under Section g6 of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree dated 28 03 2013 made in O.S No.115

Dr.D. Siva Sankara Rao-HUF vs. I.T.O. Ward-2, Eluru

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 4 of the LA Act. 19.4.1 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 submits that so far as concerns the testimony of PW-3, Mr. Vinod Kumar (purchaser of land), the same is to be rejected as PW-3 himself admits that he was not an income tax payee in 1988 nor did he inform about purchasing

P.V.S.Raju vs. The Addl. C.I.T.

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

Section 4 of the LA Act. 19.4.1 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 submits that so far as concerns the testimony of PW-3, Mr. Vinod Kumar (purchaser of land), the same is to be rejected as PW-3 himself admits that he was not an income tax payee in 1988 nor did he inform about purchasing

Pinna Nageswara RAo, vs. Commissioner of Income tax, IV (A.P)

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

3 (2004) 10 SCC 627 4 2009 (8) SCC 582 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 88 of 171 18.4 Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the market value for the acquired land of village, Kilokari cannot be treated differently from the adjacent land of posh colonies such

PRL COMMR OF INCOME TAX-7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S SRI VENKATESWARA PADMAVATHI COMPAY, KHAMMAM DIST

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

3 (2004) 10 SCC 627 4 2009 (8) SCC 582 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 88 of 171 18.4 Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the market value for the acquired land of village, Kilokari cannot be treated differently from the adjacent land of posh colonies such