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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

68. It is pointed out that in the earlier years Gopal Das Bhawan was still under construction and the interest was capitalised only up to the stage of completion of the project under „capital work and progress.‟ The interest on the CC limit for the subsequent period, after completion of project, was rightly claimed and allowed as a revenue expense

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

68. It is pointed out that in the earlier years Gopal Das Bhawan was still under construction and the interest was capitalised only up to the stage of completion of the project under „capital work and progress.‟ The interest on the CC limit for the subsequent period, after completion of project, was rightly claimed and allowed as a revenue expense

The Commissioner of Income - tax - I vs. AP State Warehousing Corporation Ltd.,

In the result, (i) A.S.(MD)No

Bench: The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court Date Of Reserving The Judgment Date Of Pronouncing The Judgment 08.10.2025 05.11.2025 Coram: The Honourable Mr.Justice C.V.Karthikeyan & The Honourable Mr.Justice R.Vijayakumar A.S.(Md)Nos.12 & 17 Of 2016 & C.M.P.(Md)Nos.854 Of 2016, 4032 & 4276 Of 2025 A.S.(Md)No.12 Of 2016

68. Unfortunately for the appellant, with respect to the respondent's claim in O.S.No.194 of 2009 and his own claim in O.S.No.130 of 2012, there is no evidence apart from bare assertions to establish that any amount had been overpaid to the respondent, or that all dues had been settled in full. The learned Trial Judge had therefore

The Commissioner of Income Tax - Central vs. M/s. Himagiri Biotech Pvt. Ltd.,

194 for the proposition that the dichotomy inherent in the use of borrowed funds, i.e borrowing itself does not create an asset, but the use of that borrowing to create an asset, which results in it. Having regard to the authorities, it was held that Section 37 could not be resorted to, because of applicability of Section

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

194 of 2008 is treated as a lead matter. 8.1. The assessee filed return of income for A.Y.  1992­93 on 30.07.1993 declaring total income  of   Rs.3,02,099/­.   During   the   course   of  assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer  found  that  assessee  had  claimed  short  term  loss   of   Rs.16,88,750/­   on   the   following  transactions: “8. The assessee  i.e. Smt. Sulochana

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

194 of 2008 is treated as a lead matter. 8.1. The assessee filed return of income for A.Y.  1992­93 on 30.07.1993 declaring total income  of   Rs.3,02,099/­.   During   the   course   of  assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer  found  that  assessee  had  claimed  short  term  loss   of   Rs.16,88,750/­   on   the   following  transactions: “8. The assessee  i.e. Smt. Sulochana

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

194 of 2008 is treated as a lead matter. 8.1. The assessee filed return of income for A.Y.  1992­93 on 30.07.1993 declaring total income  of   Rs.3,02,099/­.   During   the   course   of  assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer  found  that  assessee  had  claimed  short  term  loss   of   Rs.16,88,750/­   on   the   following  transactions: “8. The assessee  i.e. Smt. Sulochana

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

Gutta Venkata Rama Devi vs. The Income Tax Officer

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 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