The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s.ZENOTECH LABORATORIES LIMITED

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

68 of the Act is warranted. 15. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.” 4. Further, the conclusion reached in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kabul Chawla, (2016) 380 ITR 573 was summarized in PCIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia, (2017) 82 taxmann.com 287 Del. The relevant portion of the judgment passed

PENDURTHI CHANDRASEKHAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The appeal is allowed and all the four substantial

68 of the Income Tax Act, is right in law in holding that there should be sufficient reasons for receiving gifts though it is from father-in-law and the gift is covered by the provisions of Section 56 of the Act? 2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Jyothi Wines,

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

68, proposing addition of unexplained credits; but eventually the additions were made under Section 69 as undisclosed investments. There was a further addition made of Rs.7,48,750/-, which was a cheque payment made by one of the assessee- firms to T.S.Asok, one of its partners, which was said to be refund of advance paid on a property

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

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

153 ITR 521 AP. 24. Ms. Bhatt, thereafter, submitted that the registration of the company under Section 12A of the Act will also not make the assessee automatically eligible to seek exemption under Section 11 of the Act. The eligibility or otherwise of exemption shall have to be decided at the time of the assessment. Ms. Bhatt

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX vs. M/S V.SATAYANARAYANA

The appeal is allowed

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

153. (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused … they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave

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

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

68. That, the AO has duty to act judicially and independently and its judgment cannot be controlled by the superior authority. The Supreme Court in Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. Union of India27, held thus : 5. According to the learned Attorney-General the assessment proceedings are not of a quasi-judicial nature nor is the Assessing authority a quasi- judicial

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

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

68. That, the AO has duty to act judicially and independently and its judgment cannot be controlled by the superior authority. The Supreme Court in Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. Union of India27, held thus : 5. According to the learned Attorney-General the assessment proceedings are not of a quasi-judicial nature nor is the Assessing authority a quasi- judicial

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68. That, the AO has duty to act judicially and independently and its judgment cannot be controlled by the superior authority. The Supreme Court in Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. Union of India27, held thus : 5. According to the learned Attorney-General the assessment proceedings are not of a quasi-judicial nature nor is the Assessing authority a quasi- judicial

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

68. That, the AO has duty to act judicially and independently and its judgment cannot be controlled by the superior authority. The Supreme Court in Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. Union of India27, held thus : 5. According to the learned Attorney-General the assessment proceedings are not of a quasi-judicial nature nor is the Assessing authority a quasi- judicial

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

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

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

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

Pinna Nageswara RAo, vs. Commissioner of Income tax, IV (A.P)

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires

PRL COMMR OF INCOME TAX-7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S SRI VENKATESWARA PADMAVATHI COMPAY, KHAMMAM DIST

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires

Kuchipudi Krishna Kishore vs. THE DCIT, CIR-2[1],

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires