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

The appeals are allowed

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 was furnished by the Assessee in spite of the receipt of the said notices. 6) Thereafter, the concerned Assessment Officer framed ex parte assessment under Section 144 of the Act and called

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Dr.Kodela Siva Prasada Rao

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

148. Thereafter notice under Section 143 (2) was issued on 12- 12-2005. Further notice under Section 142 (1) was issued on 28-06-2006 calling for total salary particulars including all allowances received by him in the capacity of Minster during the assessment year 2003-04. 3. The assessing officer reopened the earlier assessments and brought

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

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

148 of the IT Act, fresh return under protest were filed by the assessee on 6-6-1995. As has been the fact findings have been recorded that in between 6-6-1995 to December, 1995 the Investigation Department at Delhi issued notice to the assessee and other persons and recorded their statements, which would show that they were

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

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

148 of the IT Act, fresh return under protest were filed by the assessee on 6-6-1995. As has been the fact findings have been recorded that in between 6-6-1995 to December, 1995 the Investigation Department at Delhi issued notice to the assessee and other persons and recorded their statements, which would show that they were

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

148 of the IT Act, fresh return under protest were filed by the assessee on 6-6-1995. As has been the fact findings have been recorded that in between 6-6-1995 to December, 1995 the Investigation Department at Delhi issued notice to the assessee and other persons and recorded their statements, which would show that they were

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

148 of the IT Act, fresh return under protest were filed by the assessee on 6-6-1995. As has been the fact findings have been recorded that in between 6-6-1995 to December, 1995 the Investigation Department at Delhi issued notice to the assessee and other persons and recorded their statements, which would show that they were

SRS AND Sri Sai Ganesh Productions vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Central)

68, 69 and 69A of the Act can at all be applied to the appellant when the IT Department's own case was that the appellant was only a money launderer or hawala operator ? b. Whether after having added 2% commission on the money received to the appellant's income on the footing that the appellant was a money launderer

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

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

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

148 of the Act calling upon the Assessee to file its return of income for the AY 2003-04. In response to the aforesaid notice, the Assessee filed its return of income on 16th May, 2006 disclosing its taxable income as ‗Nil‘. Thereafter, the AO issued notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. In response to the aforesaid

Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

148 & 186 OF 2011 CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL No.148: Appeal filed under Section 96 of C.P.C., aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.206 of 1999, dated 04.02.201 'l on the file of the lX Additional Chief Judge, (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Between: 1. SANJAY KUMAR BHATI, S/o Ram Vallabh Bhati Business R/o 3-5-141

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agrilcultural Market Committee

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

148 & 186 OF 2011 CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL No.148: Appeal filed under Section 96 of C.P.C., aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.206 of 1999, dated 04.02.201 'l on the file of the lX Additional Chief Judge, (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Between: 1. SANJAY KUMAR BHATI, S/o Ram Vallabh Bhati Business R/o 3-5-141

The Commissioner of Income tAx, vs. M/s. Laila Impex,

Accordingly, W.P. (Cr) No. 32 of 2016 is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68(A)/1996 the final judgment has also been delivered and in that judgment there is no discussion of the said amount. 5. Mr. R.N. Sahay, learned counsel for Income Tax Department submits that in fact the petition was filed by the Income Tax Department pursuant to that the said impugned order has been passed by the learned court rejecting

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

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 'A': 15. Section 5A (1) of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957 reads as under: “5A. Levy

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

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 dt. 1.3.07 Ext.Ka 3 31 Confession of Accused Surendra Koli

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

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