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

19 & 23-24, paras 24 & 34) “24. In construing penal statutes and taxation statutes, the Court has to apply strict rule of interpretation. The penal statute which tends to deprive a person of right to life and liberty has to be given strict interpretation or else many innocents might become victims of discretionary decision-making. Insofar as taxation statutes

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

2% of cash deposits as accommodation entry provider. Under the circumstances, the addition of Rs.166.59 crores in the hands of the respondent/assessee under Section 68 of the Act, 1961 was correctly set aside by the ITAT. 19

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

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

19 of SO Council has been authorized by the Act to do certain things which are • basically in the realm of policy decisions. It is also recpiired to iJrevent commcrcialisati.on of teacher education and to carry out such 'functions as entrusted,to it by the Central Government. 22. Section 13, which deals with inspection, reads as follows: "13. INSPECTION

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

19. Before we proceed to record the submissions that were advanced by and on behalf of respective sides, it would be appropriate to take note of and extract the relevant statutory provisions on the basis of which the question as posited would be liable to be answered. The subject of valuation of goods is firstly dealt with in Section

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

19. Before we proceed to record the submissions that were advanced by and on behalf of respective sides, it would be appropriate to take note of and extract the relevant statutory provisions on the basis of which the question as posited would be liable to be answered. The subject of valuation of goods is firstly dealt with in Section

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

The appeals are allowed

68(2) of VDIS, 1997, dt. 31.03.1998 was also issued to the Assessee, and therefore, in view of the disclosure by the Assessee under the VDIS, 1997, the action of the Assessing Officer in assessing the income of the Assessee at higher rate, cannot be sustained and has to be deleted. 14) These orders were challenged by the Department before

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

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

The appeal is allowed

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

2. Consequently, on the 18.3.1997, he initiated case number R.C. 16/97 against the appellant. During the entrapment operation, PW-7 mentioned receiving a predetermined signal from PW-5 after the transaction. However, this detail was contradicted by PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3, who asserted that PW-2 provided the alert signal, while PW-7 claimed

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed

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

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

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

19 of the 101st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2016. 32. Learned advocate appearing for Emami Agrotech Ltd has submitted that, retrospective amendments made to section 4 (5) of the West Bengal Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 2012 with effect from 26 April 1, 2012 by leaving tax on the intrastate movement of goods for the first time

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

19 (1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they have acquired absolute title over the suit schedule property by virtue of the Will said to have been executed by Munipapaiah on 13.06.1956? (2) Whether the plaintiffs prove that PW-1 can act as a witness on behalf of the Principal? (3) Whether the defendants prove that suit is barred under Order

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

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

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [TDS] vs. M/s.KCIL-MEIL [JV]

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

19, sub-sections (8) and (9) of section 44, section 49, section 67, section 68, section 69 and section 70 passed by an authority empowered to do so under this Act not being an authority above the rank of an Assistant Commissioner may, within a period of thirty days from the date