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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

147. Copy of the order along with D.N. & Ch. Etc. have been handed over to Shri D.C. Agrawal for affecting the service upon the assessee. 61. The records of the proceedings clearly shows that the AO was taking instructions on each and every hearing and dictates was clearly given to him. 62. That, even more interesting account has been given

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

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

147. Copy of the order along with D.N. & Ch. Etc. have been handed over to Shri D.C. Agrawal for affecting the service upon the assessee. 61. The records of the proceedings clearly shows that the AO was taking instructions on each and every hearing and dictates was clearly given to him. 62. That, even more interesting account has been given

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

147. Copy of the order along with D.N. & Ch. Etc. have been handed over to Shri D.C. Agrawal for affecting the service upon the assessee. 61. The records of the proceedings clearly shows that the AO was taking instructions on each and every hearing and dictates was clearly given to him. 62. That, even more interesting account has been given

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

147. Copy of the order along with D.N. & Ch. Etc. have been handed over to Shri D.C. Agrawal for affecting the service upon the assessee. 61. The records of the proceedings clearly shows that the AO was taking instructions on each and every hearing and dictates was clearly given to him. 62. That, even more interesting account has been given

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

68 of the Act were not tenable since the assessee did not maintain regular books of account and filed his return of income under Section 44AF of the Act being a retail trader of shoe soles. 13. On behalf of the Department, it was contended that notice under Section 148 was duly sent by speed post which

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

68. Submission is that the prompt report of the incident by the accused persons naming the assailants therein, who are prosecution witnesses herein and the injury reports of the accused appellants proved by the doctor examined as P.W-4, in addition to the defence taken by them under Section 313 Cr.P.C is sufficient proof of the plea of the accused

Commissioner of Income Tax-I, vs. M/s. Coromandel Hotesl Pvt. Ltd.,

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,N.RAVI SHANKAR

68 of 2007: 1. Whether the petitioner had sustained injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of Jeep (Tempo Trax No. HP-33-T-9832 being driven by Shri Sanjiv Kumar, respondent no. 2 on 22.10.2006 at about 7.30 p.m., near Tihri in Kot Dhar, District Bilaspur, H.P.? ….OPP 5 2. If issue No. 1 supra is proved

Paro Food Products, vs. Commissioner of Income Tax -VI

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

147 of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which was dismissed by an order dated 29.09.2009. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was upheld by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for short) vide order dated 29.03.2010. 7 3. The assessee thereupon approached

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), vs. M/s Country Club Inda Limited

147 read with Section 143(3) of the Act in respect of the AYs 2003-04 and 2004-05 as well as an assessment order dated 31st December, 2007 passed by the AO in respect of assessment year 2005-06. 2. ITA Nos. 666/2014, 667/2014 and 673/2014 impugn a common order dated 13th June, 2014 passed by the ITAT

The Commissioner of Income -Tax - III, vs. Shri Taher Ali

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68; and in particular paragrpah 8; 2. V.K.Jhamb V C.M.Bhatia, 1985 Bom. R.C. 293; 3. Trikam Jivraj Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1969 Gujarat 69' 4. Bai Devmani V. Raviskankar, AIR 1929 Bombay 147. He also relied upon Section

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

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

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

147 of 2013. The reference proceedings and the capital criminal appeal arising out of the same judgment dated 24.12.2012 have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. In order to protect identity of the unfortunate victims of Nithari incident, their names are being anonymized. The Nithari Incident 3. Nithari is a village abutting Sector

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

147] , one principle which clearly emerges, and over which there is no dispute before us, also, is that exemption notifications, like the one in question must be read in a manner that give them a liberal interpretation, provided that no violence is done to the language employed. The rationale for the same is well enunciated inNovopan (India

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

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

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