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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

D. Sanjeevayija v. Election Tribunal, Andhra'.Pradesh and others,. AIR 1967 Sc 1211, their Lordships have expressed thus: "(4) We are unable to accept the argument of the • .. appellant as correct. In our opinion, the provisions of • . 5.150 of the Act must be'interpreted in the context of Sections 8 14 and 98(c) and other relevant provisions

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s. BDR Projects Pvt. Ltd.

d) in any other case, the date of payment of duty or interest. Explanation 2. - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any non-levy, short-levy or erroneous refund before the date on which the Finance Bill, 2011 receives the assent of the President, shall continue to be governed by the provisions of Section

SYED ABBAS MIAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-I,KURNOOL

D. Ghosh, Adv. Mr. S. Sanyal, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Sujit Ghosh, Sr. Adv. (Samsung) Ms. Mannat Waraich, Adv. Mr. A. Behura, Adv Mr. Pujon Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Sutosom Bhattacharyya, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Boudhayan Bhattacharyaa, Adv. 4 No. 2 Ms. Stuti Bansai, Adv. For Ranbaxy Laboratories: Mr. Suman Basu, Adv. Pvt. Ltd. For the Respondent : Mr. Kumarjit

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/s. Murala Venkateswara Rao AND others

Appeal is dismissed,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

5 (2) of the PC Act, 1988 to grant tender of pardon to the Auditor. While the said petition was pending, the said Auditor/accused No.2 also filed Crl.M.P.No.14 of 2002 and the learned Special Judge allowed both petitions granting tender of pardon to the Auditor/accused No.2 and rounded off the name of Auditor/accused No.2 in the charge sheet

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

Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused has denied his implication in the case/offence and has claimed that he was tortured and that his nails were extracted, his genitals were burnt and petrol was put in his anus. He offered to get himself medically examined to prove his allegations. The accused SK also claimed that he was extended other tortures

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

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 - 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

17 32 RNT, J & HN, J TREVC. No. 83 of 2008 & batch “20. It is a settled canon of statutory interpretation that as a first step, the courts ought to interpret the text of the provision and construct it literally. Provisions in a statute must be read in their original grammatical meaning to give its words a common textual meaning

M/S NMDC LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed

Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

68 of 2016whereby and whereunder the Learned Family Court while allowing the petition filed under Section 12(1) (C) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by appellant/petitioner/wife has granted Rs. 30,00,000/-(Thirty Lakh) as permanent alimony to appellant and herein the amount of alimony has been challenged on the ground of miscalculation

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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

D. NAIR SMT. ARYA ANIL SMT. NILOOFAR O. NIZAM SMT.NIVEDITA A.KAMATH SRI.SREEJITH R.NAIR THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.04.2019, THE COURT ON 18.6.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ITA.No.283 of 2010 3 JUDGMENT Arun.J The appeal is filed by the Revenue, aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), as confirmed by the Income

M/s. Maruthi Movies vs. Income Tax Officer

Bench: This Court & Making The Same A Rule Of Court, Alongwith Decree Against Respondents Awarding Rs.5,35,920/- Paid By The Petitioner To The Arbitrator As Their Share Of Fees As Per Order Dated 21.12.2010. 2. Respondent No.1 Has Filed Its Objections To The Award Under Section 30 & 33 Of The Act In Form Of I.A. No.9067/2011. Respondent No.2 Has Also Filed Its Objections To The Award.

d) of sub-section (1), the court may enforce specific performance in the following cases: xxxxxx (c) where the suit is for the enforcement of a contract for the construction of any building or the execution of any other work on land: PROVIDED that the following conditions are fulfilled, namely:- (i) the building or other work is described

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Chirla Rama Reddy, Contract

Appeal is dismissed with costs

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice N.K.Sudhindrarao R.S.A.No.70/2007

68. Thus, the matter remains in the suspended animation insofar as Sub-Registrar and District Registrar are concerned and the Civil court has to dispose of the suit. The Hon’ble Apex court has observed that “the Sub-Registrar is required to satisfy himself with the due execution of the document.” 69. The direction was given to the trial court

Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. M/S Sri Ramanjaneya Poultry Farm Pvt., Ltd.,

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

17. We have seen above that the scope of Section 293 of the Act has been widened now even to include any proceeding under the Act and it is not merely confined merely to set aside or modify any order. Form of suit is not relevant. It is the substance which is to be seen. When the statute prescribed

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed

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

17. 104 CLR 529 18. AIR 1963 SC 1760 19. AIR 1967 SC 1513 20. (1990) 1 SCC 12 21. (1936) AC 578 22. (1969) 2 SCC 166 23. AIR 1962 SC 1044 24. (1955) 1 SCR 1071 25. (1996 ) 3 SCC 434 26. AIR 1955 SC 58 27. (1951) S.C.R. 682 28. (1940) F.C.R. 110 29. (1995) Supp

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

D) Reference is made to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of CIT v K.V. Krishnaswamy Naidu6, to submit that the authorised officer, the Director (Inv.), was only confined to carry out search and seizure, but was not the Income- Tax Officer who could pass an order under sub-section (5) of Section

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

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

D) Reference is made to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of CIT v K.V. Krishnaswamy Naidu6, to submit that the authorised officer, the Director (Inv.), was only confined to carry out search and seizure, but was not the Income- Tax Officer who could pass an order under sub-section (5) of Section

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

D) Reference is made to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of CIT v K.V. Krishnaswamy Naidu6, to submit that the authorised officer, the Director (Inv.), was only confined to carry out search and seizure, but was not the Income- Tax Officer who could pass an order under sub-section (5) of Section