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

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIAJAYAWADA vs. THE KRISHNA DISTRICT MILK PRODUCERS MUTUALLY AIDED CO -OP.,

In the result: MAC No. 734 of 2017 preferred by the insurance company

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

173 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the Insurance Company & the claimants arise out of the common award dated 23.02.2017 passed by the 1st Additional Presiding Officer to the Court of 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) in claim case No. 03/2012, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Appellant/Insurance Company

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s.Lifeline Aqua Pvt Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68 of 2011 In FIRST APPEAL NO. 14 of 2010 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK ========================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agriculture Market Committee,

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

68 of 2011 In FIRST APPEAL NO. 14 of 2010 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK ========================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). 2. The following facts emerge from the record of the appeals - 2.1 That on 04.02.2002, the claimant was travelling in Uno Car bearing registration no. GJ-1-BP-8865. The said car was being driven by one Manubhai Bhikhabhai Patel and the owner of the said

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

173 5,16,08,028 3,92,57,369 Page 8 of 96 C/TAXAP/627/2015 JUDGMENT Effluent Treatment Charges Other income 1,06,75,007 79,01,791 48,14,193 4,75,780 Total Income 7,34,51,335 6,85,28,964 5,64,22,221 3,97,33,149 Expenditure Operating Expenses

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

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Jayalakshmi Chits

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

173 (Cal.), (ii) CIT v. Shekhawati Rajputana  Trading   Co.   (P).   Ltd.  reported   in  236   ITR  950   (Cal.),   (iii)  M.Ravji   &   Co.   v.   ITO  reported in  55 TTJ (Ahd) 625, (iv)  CIT v.  L.N. Dalmia  reported in  207 ITR 89 (Cal.),  and thereafter, held as under: “22. As the onus was on assessee and it has  not   been   discharged   by   producing evidence

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S Gulf Oil Corporation Pvt. Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

173 (Cal.), (ii) CIT v. Shekhawati Rajputana  Trading   Co.   (P).   Ltd.  reported   in  236   ITR  950   (Cal.),   (iii)  M.Ravji   &   Co.   v.   ITO  reported in  55 TTJ (Ahd) 625, (iv)  CIT v.  L.N. Dalmia  reported in  207 ITR 89 (Cal.),  and thereafter, held as under: “22. As the onus was on assessee and it has  not   been   discharged   by   producing evidence

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

173 (Cal.), (ii) CIT v. Shekhawati Rajputana  Trading   Co.   (P).   Ltd.  reported   in  236   ITR  950   (Cal.),   (iii)  M.Ravji   &   Co.   v.   ITO  reported in  55 TTJ (Ahd) 625, (iv)  CIT v.  L.N. Dalmia  reported in  207 ITR 89 (Cal.),  and thereafter, held as under: “22. As the onus was on assessee and it has  not   been   discharged   by   producing evidence

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

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

SECTION 19(1) OF THE BDA ACT I.E., ANNEX-P, IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONER IN SY.NO.30/6 & 30/7, K. NARAYANAPURA VILLAGE, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, MEASURING 22 GUNTAS AND 26 GUNTAS RESPECTIVELY. IN W.P.NO.55081/2014: BETWEEN: MR N. R. VENKATESHMURTHY S/O SRI. RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE

The commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s Lanco Kondapalli Power (P) Ltd

Section 2(l) of the MSA and hence, the State Government lacks the power to levy stamp duty on a BoL. (v) A combined reading of Entry 63 of List II and Entry 91 of List I of Schedule VII to the Constitution indicates that the State Legislature is not competent to prescribe the rate of stamp duty

M/s Durga Granites, vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1,

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

68 M/s. Rohini Stone Quarry (A Proprietorship concern), having its works at Mouza and Village Sarasdangal, P.O. and P.S. Shikaripara, District Dumkar, PIN 816103. (Jharkhand), through its Proprietor, namely Mithun Ansari, aged about 33 years, son of Islam Ansari, resident of village Sarasdangal, P.O. and P.S. Shikaripara, District Dumkar, PIN 816103, (Jharkhand). ..........Petitioner. -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand, through