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

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

The appeal is allowed

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

68 of 2016 so far, the annulment of marriage between the parties under Section 12(1) (C) is concerned, is hereby affirmed. 71. Now coming to the issue of permanent alimony which is the subject matter in the F.A.No. 213 of 2019. It has been contended by the appellant/ wife that the permanent alimony as determined by the learned

PR COMMR OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. K RAVINDER REDDY, HYDERABAD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

199 [affirmed in Formula One World Championship v Commissioner of Income Tax CIT 2017 (394) ITR 80 (SC)]; Director of Income Tax v. E-Funds IT Solution 2014 (364) ITR 256 [affirmed in Additional Director International Taxation v. E-Funds IT Solutions Inc. 2017 (399) ITR 34 (SC) and National Petroleum Construction Company

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 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

2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE-560020 3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE-560020 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.V. SHASHIKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI. M.N. RAMANJANEYA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. D.N. NANJUNDA REDDY, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. B.S. SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

199 ITR 43 that double deduction for an item should not be inferred and, therefore, the payment of liability of old loan was not allowed as application of income and penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated for claiming inaccurate expenditure and concealment of income of Rs.2,81,33,700/-. Facts

THEE COMMSSR.OF INCOME TAX.HYD. vs. CHALLA SHANKER REDDY.HYD.

Bench: L.NARASIMHA REDDY,T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

199,7 and batch) has made dcr_ailec submissions on the routing of funds b}, -he appellant No.2/C.V. Rao be.trveen December, 1994 _ January, lgg5 rvlrich included several circurti,rr; transactions through c.v. Rao's tnrste,l employees, Rajeshwar Ra. a.d Sanjay. By these transactions, O.,/. Rao first deposited the amolrnts into the accounts of the responctent; (N. Subash and family

COMMR.OF I.T. RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/S.NARAYANA CHOWDARYAND ORS KAKINADA

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

199,7 and batch) has made dcr_ailec submissions on the routing of funds b}, -he appellant No.2/C.V. Rao be.trveen December, 1994 _ January, lgg5 rvlrich included several circurti,rr; transactions through c.v. Rao's tnrste,l employees, Rajeshwar Ra. a.d Sanjay. By these transactions, O.,/. Rao first deposited the amolrnts into the accounts of the responctent; (N. Subash and family

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - (TDS), vs. M/s. Suman Chit Funds (P) Ltd.,

199,7 and batch) has made dcr_ailec submissions on the routing of funds b}, -he appellant No.2/C.V. Rao be.trveen December, 1994 _ January, lgg5 rvlrich included several circurti,rr; transactions through c.v. Rao's tnrste,l employees, Rajeshwar Ra. a.d Sanjay. By these transactions, O.,/. Rao first deposited the amolrnts into the accounts of the responctent; (N. Subash and family

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Hycons Infrastructure (India) Ltd.

The appeals are dismissed

199 7 and of 2007, had declared complete exemption from payment of excise duty on th e products produced in the North-eastern region as a public policy to stimulate the economic development in the North-eastern region. The petitioners in the wri t petitions and the respondents in the appeal inspired by the concessions offere d by the Industrial

THE COMMISSIONER OF IT IV vs. M/S. OCEAN SPARKLES LIMITED

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

68,234 Interest As such whatever payments have been made stand duly reflected in the books and cannot be characterized as investment from the undisclosed sources. The total amount paid by the Assessee Company in respect of the said vehicle amount toRs.1,39,01,449/- and not Rs.1,37,07,306/-." ITA 86/2013 Page 10 of 23 7. Before

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 - IV vs. M/s. Mekins Agro Product (P) Ltd.

199 ITR 43 (SC). We shall refer to this judgment subsequently. In order to appreciate the contention raised by the Revenue, we would like to give one example which would clarify the contention or the issue raised before us. An assessee, a charitable institution, say has income from property held underTrustof Rs.1,00,000/-. As per mandate of clause

The Commissioner of Income tax-III, Hyderabad. vs. Delco Remy Electricals (India) Limited

199 of 2006 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE ========================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

2. The Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Jharkhand Mantralaya (Project Building), PO. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand), 3. The Director, Mines Directorate, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Yojna 2025:JHHC:29619-DB 52 Bhawan, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi-8334002 (Jharkhand), ........... Respondents. ----- With