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

15. The Collector of Customs (Preventive) confirmed the demand of duty in the sum of Rs. 5,07,274 under Section 28 (1) of the Act. The Collector W.P. (C) 441/2013 & connected matters Page 16 of 66 also ordered confiscation of two consignments of dyes, sulphur blue and sulphur blue green. Aggrieved by the above order, the Respondents went

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

68-C of the old Act, pending on the date of enforcement of the new Act, namely, 1.7.1989, • the period of one year as prescribed under S. 100(4) should be computed from the date of commencement of the new Act. This interpretation would give full effect to • both. the Sections-S. 100(4) and S. 217(2

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Atyam Suryanarayana

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 5Th February 2024. Appearance: Mr. Om Narayan Rai, Advocate Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate …For The Appellant. 1. Heard Sri Om Narayan Rai, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Appellant. None Appears For The Respondent Assessee. 2. Affidavit Of Service Filed Today By Learned Counsel For The Appellant, In Compliance Of The Orders Dated 17.02.2023 & 15.01.2024, Is Taken On Record. Service Of Notice Upon The Respondent Assessee Is Found To Be Sufficient. 3. This Appeal Was Admitted By Order Of This Court Dated 03.09.2010, On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law:- “I) Whether The Learned Tribunal Was Justified On The Facts & Circumstances Of This Case To Follow The Ratio Decided By The

15, 16 and 23), the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the nature and scope of Section 68 of the Act, 1961 and after referring to its earlier judgments in Sumati Dayal v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore reported in 1999 Supp (2

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2,01,250 19.2.92 40.25 9,80,000 16.1.92 Rs.4,43,750/­ c) 30,000 12,22,500 19.2.92 40.75 28 L & T 19,45,000 18.2.92 a) 10,000 194.50 21,30,000 b) 5,000 9,35,000 19.2.92 187.00 21.1.92 142.00 Rs.7,50,000/­ Total LossRs.16,88,250/­ 8.2. The   Assessing   Officer   after   verification  found that

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2,01,250 19.2.92 40.25 9,80,000 16.1.92 Rs.4,43,750/­ c) 30,000 12,22,500 19.2.92 40.75 28 L & T 19,45,000 18.2.92 a) 10,000 194.50 21,30,000 b) 5,000 9,35,000 19.2.92 187.00 21.1.92 142.00 Rs.7,50,000/­ Total LossRs.16,88,250/­ 8.2. The   Assessing   Officer   after   verification  found that

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2,01,250 19.2.92 40.25 9,80,000 16.1.92 Rs.4,43,750/­ c) 30,000 12,22,500 19.2.92 40.75 28 L & T 19,45,000 18.2.92 a) 10,000 194.50 21,30,000 b) 5,000 9,35,000 19.2.92 187.00 21.1.92 142.00 Rs.7,50,000/­ Total LossRs.16,88,250/­ 8.2. The   Assessing   Officer   after   verification  found that

Commissioner of Income Tax- IT and TP vs. M/s. Louis Berger International Inc.,

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Section 18 and explained its significance in the following words: ―22. The significance of Section 18 of the Act can be understood in the light of the above provisions. Section 18 provides for provisional assessment of duty in cases specified in sub-section (1) of the section. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) deals

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s. Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Section 18 and explained its significance in the following words: ―22. The significance of Section 18 of the Act can be understood in the light of the above provisions. Section 18 provides for provisional assessment of duty in cases specified in sub-section (1) of the section. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) deals

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

The appeal is allowed

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

15 pm. xi. PW-3 recalled that during the transaction as part of the entrapment process, both he and PW-8 overheard a conversation conducted in Bengali between the appellant and PW-2, witnessing the exchange of the bribe money. Following the conversation, the entrapment operation unfolded, leading to the apprehension of the appellant. PW- 3 also noted that

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed

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

15, Section IV is from Chapters 16 to 24, Section V is from Chapters 25 to 27 and Section VI is from Chapters 28 to 38. 62. Chapter I in Section I, which relates to live animals, covers all live animals except (a) fish and crustaceans, mollusks and other aquatic invertebrates, (b) cultures of micro-organisms

Commissioner of Incometax-1, Hyderabad vs. M/s. Divis Laboratories Ltd.,

The appeals are allowed

15) Before the Tribunal, a doubt was raised as to whether the VDIS 1997 was available for the Assessee for the year 1995-96. In addition, it was also contended by the Department relying on Section 64(2) of the VDIS, 1997 that once the Assessee had been given a notice under Section 148 of the Income

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Sri B.Ramanarayanba Rao

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 12Th December, 2023 Appearance: Ms. Anupa Banerjee, Adv. …For The Appellant. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. ...For The Respondent. 1. Supplementary Paper Book Filed Today By The Assessee Is Taken On Record. 2. Heard Ms. Anupa Banerjee, Learned Counsel For The Appellant/Assessee & Mr. Amit Sharma, Learned Standing Counsel For The Respondent/Income Tax Department. Facts: 3. Briefly Stated Facts Of The Present Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In Trading (Export & Domestic) Of

2 various commodities. During the assessment year in question i.e., A.Y. 2005-06, the appellant/assessee received gift of jewellery valued at Rs.34,68,900/- which was introduced as capital in the business. Out of the aforesaid jewellery, the assessee sold jewellery valued at Rs.9,00,000/- to M/s. Bhootnath Jewelers (P) Limited and received two cheques of State Bank

M/s. Canara Securities Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO,T.AMARNATH GOUD

68 of 300 Section 2(55) of the said Act that is a person whose name is entered in the Register of Members or the beneficial owner in the records of the depository. It is submitted that in the instant case even by the respondent’s own showing since the estate does not hold or even control directly

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

Appeal is dismissed,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 2 (c) of the PC Act, 1988. 17. Ex.PIO is the order issued by P.W4, Commissioner of Income Tax- according sanction to prosecute the II, Visakhapatnam respondent/accused officer. The evidence of P.W.4 substantiates the same. Coming to evidence, P.W.1, who set the criminal law motion by lodging Ex.PI-report, he deposed that during the 1997 he constructed

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Hyderabad vs. M/s. Vasant Intermediates Private Limited

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Ashok S. Kinagi

15 by Munipapaiah on 13.06.1956. The Trial Court has observed that issue Nos. 2 and 3 do not arise for consideration and held that defendant No.1 has proved that defendant No.1 succeeded to the schedule property being the daughter of Munipapaiah and further held that the defendant No.1 has proved that the suit is barred under Order II Rule 2

A.P.State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited vs. The Income tax Officer

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

2 of 12 Bahl. Shri Dinesh Bahl pre-deceased Smt. Ram Piari and the appellants herein are the legal heirs of Shri Dinesh Bahl. They are residing abroad. Shri Rajneesh Bahl died during the pendency of the proceedings before the trial court. 4. The estate of Smt. Ram Piari comprises of property bearing No. 14, Kautalya Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi

The Commissioner of Income Tax - I vs. M/s. BBL Foods (Earlier Amber Biscuits P Ltd.)

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

15. During cross examination in page 68, Sri.Joy deposed that his income was too high than shown in the income tax returns and the income shown in the returns was not correct. In the argument notes titled “the business of Sri.Joy and benefit of purchase”, in paragraph 19, it is stated that all the real estate transactions of Sri.Joy

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