Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Sri B.Ramanarayanba Rao

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 12Th December, 2023 Appearance: Ms. Anupa Banerjee, Adv. …For The Appellant. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. ...For The Respondent. 1. Supplementary Paper Book Filed Today By The Assessee Is Taken On Record. 2. Heard Ms. Anupa Banerjee, Learned Counsel For The Appellant/Assessee & Mr. Amit Sharma, Learned Standing Counsel For The Respondent/Income Tax Department. Facts: 3. Briefly Stated Facts Of The Present Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In Trading (Export & Domestic) Of

Section 68 of the Act, 1961 is, thus, perverse. 15. Bare reading of Section 68 of the Act, 1961 suggests

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Hyderabad vs. M/s. Vasant Intermediates Private Limited

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Ashok S. Kinagi

Section 68 of the Evidence Act. Thus the plaintiffs have failed to prove that Munipapaiah executed a Will dated 13.06.1956. In view of the above discussion, I answer point No.1 in negative. 13. Point No.2: Plaintiffs examined their power of attorney holder as PW-1. PW-1 has no personal knowledge about the case and he has clearly admitted

A.P.State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited vs. The Income tax Officer

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

68 deals with the proof of the execution of the document required by law to be attested; and it provides that such a document shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution. These provisions prescribe the requirements and the nature of proof which must be satisfied

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.Visakha Industries Ltd

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

section 68 of the Act itself provides, where any sum is found credited in the books of the assessees for any previous year the same may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessees of the previous year if the explanation offered by the assessees about the nature and source of such sums found credited

M/S. GAUTAMI POWER LIMITED vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

68-C of the old Act, pending on the date of enforcement of the new Act, namely, 1.7.1989, • the period of one year as prescribed under S. 100(4) should be computed from the date of commencement of the new Act. This interpretation would give full effect to • both. the Sections

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

sections 68 and 69 of the Act. In consideration of all these observations, we are inclined to hold that the share application money as raised in the grounds of appeal ITA Nos.547/2013 & other connected matters Page 9 of 13 cannot be held as non-genuine and added as income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. Consequently, additions

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

The appeals are dismissed

sections 68 and 69 of the Act. In consideration of all these observations, we are inclined to hold that the share application money as raised in the grounds of appeal ITA Nos.547/2013 & other connected matters Page 9 of 13 cannot be held as non-genuine and added as income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. Consequently, additions

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

15. The Tribunal found that the assessee had failed to discharge the initial burden of proof as required under Section 68

Commissioner of Income Tax-V, vs. M/s.Sirveen Control Systems

Appeal is partly allowed

15 partly in negative and issue no.6 and 7 as partly in affirmative and decreed suit in part, declaring that gift deed dated 06.12.2005 executed by defendant no.1 as not binding on plaintiffs and granted a decree of partition and separate possession of 1/6th share to each of plaintiffs only insofar as ‘A’ schedule property. Aggrieved by partial decree, plaintiffs

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

The appeals are allowed

15) Before the Tribunal, a doubt was raised as to whether the VDIS 1997 was available for the Assessee for the year 1995-96. In addition, it was also contended by the Department relying on Section 64(2) of the VDIS, 1997 that once the Assessee had been given a notice under Section 148 of the Income

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

15 days and, therefore, he could not moot a proposal under sub-section (8) for further retention of the documents beyond 180 days. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. 17. The fact as has been shown in the order the part of the documents were sent to the AO on 20-3-1995 though it was received

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

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

15 days and, therefore, he could not moot a proposal under sub-section (8) for further retention of the documents beyond 180 days. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. 17. The fact as has been shown in the order the part of the documents were sent to the AO on 20-3-1995 though it was received

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

15 days and, therefore, he could not moot a proposal under sub-section (8) for further retention of the documents beyond 180 days. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. 17. The fact as has been shown in the order the part of the documents were sent to the AO on 20-3-1995 though it was received

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

15 days and, therefore, he could not moot a proposal under sub-section (8) for further retention of the documents beyond 180 days. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. 17. The fact as has been shown in the order the part of the documents were sent to the AO on 20-3-1995 though it was received

PENDURTHI CHANDRASEKHAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The appeal is allowed and all the four substantial

15. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted four reframed substantial questions of law, the first of three relate only to one issue namely the addition of Rs.3,40,000/- as unexplained credit under Section 68

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. The Andhra Petro Chemicals Limited

Section 68 of the State Universities Act, 1973. The representation submitted by him was rejected by the Chancellor vide order dated 19.05.2017. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Chancellor and has sought other reliefs also, which are extracted above. In his representation made to the Chancellor, petitioner contended that respondent

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed

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

15, Section IV is from Chapters 16 to 24, Section V is from Chapters 25 to 27 and Section VI is from Chapters 28 to 38. 62. Chapter I in Section I, which relates to live animals, covers all live animals except (a) fish and crustaceans, mollusks and other aquatic invertebrates, (b) cultures of micro-organisms