Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

148 of the Act issued by the A.C.I.T., Circle -1, Agra as also the I.T.O.-1(1), Agra was never served on him and the addition made under Section 68

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

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

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

The appeals are allowed

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice (Oral) These two appeals, filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( for short ‘the Act’) had been admitted on 14.03.2012 to consider the following questions of law:- ITA No. 03 of 2012:- i) Whether

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

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

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

1% whereas in the matter of appellant same was taken @ 2% without any warrant or justification whatsoever ? 2. The assessee who is the appellant herein had been carrying on a lodge and had also filed returns of income for the assessment years involved in the above case; 2002-03 to 2005-06. An action under Section 147 was initiated

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

68 of 171 with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA + LA.AP. 256/2017 POJA .Apelant Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR .Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Sri Laxmi Narasimha Wines,

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

68 of 171 with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA + LA.AP. 256/2017 POJA .Apelant Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR .Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar

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

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

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

1 Bigha sold from village Kilokari for consideration of Rs. 2,07,500/-. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the learned Reference Court held that there was a possibility that the sale deed was executed at inflated prices to claim a higher compensation since it was a known fact that such schemes of acquisition become known to the residents

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

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

1 Bigha sold from village Kilokari for consideration of Rs. 2,07,500/-. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the learned Reference Court held that there was a possibility that the sale deed was executed at inflated prices to claim a higher compensation since it was a known fact that such schemes of acquisition become known to the residents

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

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

1 and 2 companies and certain other individuals as Directors of 4 listed companies, 3 subsidiaries of one listed company and an unlisted company is bad in law since the Joint APLs merely represents the estate of PDB and thus, had no rights to seek appointment of Directors in companies in which PDB was not a "Member". Further, without prejudice