The Commissioner of Income Tax - VI vs. M/s. Manikanta Iron AND Hardware

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68,478/­.  However,   it   was   seen   that   at   page   88   the  assessee  has  enclosed  computation  of total  income of GAFL according to which income has  been computed at NIL by chiming unabsorbed  business   loss   brought   forward   from   Asst.  Year 1991­92 at Rs. 16,38,462/­ and in the  note   total   business   loss   to   be   carried  forward to asst. year 1993­94

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

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

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

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-1 vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. the High Court may be pleased suspend the operation of the judgment and decree dated 4th February 2O11 rendered by the lx Adl. chief Judge, IFTCI ccc, Hyderabad in os.No 206 of 1999 far as Additional lssue framed on 3-3-2006 which

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agrilcultural Market Committee

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

151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. the High Court may be pleased suspend the operation of the judgment and decree dated 4th February 2O11 rendered by the lx Adl. chief Judge, IFTCI ccc, Hyderabad in os.No 206 of 1999 far as Additional lssue framed on 3-3-2006 which

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

151 (SC) 3 (2001) 165 CTR (All) 565 = (2000) 246 ITR 560 (All) 4 (2000) 164 CTR (Bom) 273 = (2000) 246 ITR 693 (Bom) = (2000) 113 TAXMAN 386 (Bom) 12 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters opportunity of hearing has been given to the assessee the entire annulment of assessment cannot be justified and even if certain wrong

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

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

151 (SC) 3 (2001) 165 CTR (All) 565 = (2000) 246 ITR 560 (All) 4 (2000) 164 CTR (Bom) 273 = (2000) 246 ITR 693 (Bom) = (2000) 113 TAXMAN 386 (Bom) 12 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters opportunity of hearing has been given to the assessee the entire annulment of assessment cannot be justified and even if certain wrong

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

151 (SC) 3 (2001) 165 CTR (All) 565 = (2000) 246 ITR 560 (All) 4 (2000) 164 CTR (Bom) 273 = (2000) 246 ITR 693 (Bom) = (2000) 113 TAXMAN 386 (Bom) 12 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters opportunity of hearing has been given to the assessee the entire annulment of assessment cannot be justified and even if certain wrong

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

151 (SC) 3 (2001) 165 CTR (All) 565 = (2000) 246 ITR 560 (All) 4 (2000) 164 CTR (Bom) 273 = (2000) 246 ITR 693 (Bom) = (2000) 113 TAXMAN 386 (Bom) 12 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters opportunity of hearing has been given to the assessee the entire annulment of assessment cannot be justified and even if certain wrong

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

68 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.1 4TH MAIN, IST STAGE MSH LAYOUT, ANANDNAGAR BANGALORE-560 024. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. VENKATESH MURTHY G.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT M S BUILDING BANGALORE-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST PALACE ROAD BANGALORE-560003 3. THE LAND ACQUISITION

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

Section 27 begins with a proviso and states that when any fact is deposed to as discovered, in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved, 49 whether it amounts to a confession

M/s. Kausalya Shelters Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

151 and K. Sugumar and Another vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Limited and Another, (2020) 12 SCC 539 to this effect. 28. As far as facts of the instant case are concerned, it is his submission that because of the following reasons, the respondent had agreed to lease the rented property for the rent-free for the first twelve months

Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Visakhapatnam vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Paderu

Appeal stands dismissed,

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

2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and the assessee was directed to furnish the details of the unsecured loans reflected in the balance sheet of the relevant assessment year. The assessee by communication dated 08.10.2007 took up a new contention that the partnership firm has introduced unsecured loans from two new persons, namely Smt. Rachna

The Director of Income Tax [Exempetions] vs. Share India

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68 years, Occ. Agriculture R/o. H.No. 3-1 - 73, Ramantapur Village, Uppal Mandal, R.R. District 4. Amid, S/o. Late M.A. Sattar, Aged Major, Occ. Business, P.Jo.3-131111, Ramantapur Village, Uppal Mandal, R.R. District 5. Shaman Sultana,, W/o Late M.A. Saftar, No.3-131111 , RamantapurVillage, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 6. Mohd. Mohida, S/o. M.A. Sattar, Aged 36 years, Occ. Business

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s OM R.S.Wines

Appeal is hereby allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68 Years 3. Devkumar S/o Nityanand, Aged About 58 Years 4. Laxmi Kumar S/o Nityanand, Aged About 63 Years 5. Pramod Kumar S/o Nityanand, Aged About 59 Years 6. Ramesh Kumar S/o Nityanand, Aged About 55 Years 7. Kamlesh Kumar S/o Nityanand, Aged About 51 Years 8. Umesh Kumar S/o Nityanand, Aged About 45 Years All are R/o Vill- Changori

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

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