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

E N T % 03.05.2016 Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.: Introduction 1. The common question in this batch of matters pertains to the constitutional validity of Section 28 (11) of the Customs Act, 1962 („Act‟) which was inserted by the Customs (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2011 („Validation Act, 2011‟) with effect from 16th September 2011. In terms of Section

Commissioner of Income Tax-i, vs. Agricultural Market Committee

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar

68,000 9 Loan received from brother `3,25,000 10 Proceeds of NSC `86,500 11 Agriculture income `1,22,000 12 Customary gifts `2,04,000 Total Income ` 22,33,819.00 22,33,819.00 22,33,819.00 22,33,819.00 7. Sri. Nagendra Naik, learned counsel for the accused argued that the investigating officer did not account

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

22 of 50 26. Sebtidñ 15 deals with permission for a new course or training by a "17. Cntraventon of provisions of the Act and cousequences thereof - (1) Where the Regional Committee is, onits ownmOtion. or on any , representation received from any person, • satisfied that a recognised institution has contraiened any of the provisions of this Act, or the rules

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68,478/­.  However,   it   was   seen   that   at   page   88   the  assessee  has  enclosed  computation  of total  income of GAFL according to which income has  been computed at NIL by chiming unabsorbed  business   loss   brought   forward   from   Asst.  Year 1991­92 at Rs. 16,38,462/­ and in the  note   total   business   loss   to   be   carried  forward to asst. year 1993­94

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68,478/­.  However,   it   was   seen   that   at   page   88   the  assessee  has  enclosed  computation  of total  income of GAFL according to which income has  been computed at NIL by chiming unabsorbed  business   loss   brought   forward   from   Asst.  Year 1991­92 at Rs. 16,38,462/­ and in the  note   total   business   loss   to   be   carried  forward to asst. year 1993­94

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68,478/­.  However,   it   was   seen   that   at   page   88   the  assessee  has  enclosed  computation  of total  income of GAFL according to which income has  been computed at NIL by chiming unabsorbed  business   loss   brought   forward   from   Asst.  Year 1991­92 at Rs. 16,38,462/­ and in the  note   total   business   loss   to   be   carried  forward to asst. year 1993­94

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

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

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

22 of 300 a. Injunction restraining the said two joint Administrators pendent lite of the Estate of Priyamvada Devi Birla from interfering with the assets and properties of the petitioner and more particularly its 100% shareholding in its three wholly owned subsidiaries, August Agents Limited, Insilco Agents Limited and Laneseda Agents Limited. b. Injunction restraining the said two joint Administrators

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

The Commissioner of Income -Tax - III, vs. Shri Taher Ali

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

e) and non user as contemplated by Section 13 (1)(k) of the Act. 59. Plaintiffs have contended that defendant no.1 has, since coming into operation of the Act, unlawfully sub-let or given on leave and licence, the whole or part of the suit premises or assigned or transferred in any other manner her interest thereon in favour

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed

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

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

V.C. NANNAPANENI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

In the result, the appeals are allowed

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

68,625/- and in the process of determination, the said officer has included a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- received by the appellant from Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited (hereinafter referred to as “RLL”) towards “non-competition fee” included under the head “income from other sources” and treated it as revenue receipt and accordingly subjected the same to tax. As regards

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

Appeal is dismissed,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

e) The accused officer was caught red-handed when he accepted bribe of Rs.25,000/- from P.W1 given to P.W3/Auditor, who was present along with them for reducing the tax payable by P.W1; that the numbers of the tainted currency notes were tallied with the notes of currency numbers mentioned in pre-trap proceedings under Ex.P3-First Mediators Report, dated

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

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

E and F in the presence of Ram Pyari. Lastly it was signed by this witness at Mark K in the presence of Ram Pyari and Trilok Nath Aggarwal. He proved that Ram Pyari executed the Will dated 12.8.1986 in the presence of two witnesses namely Naveen Bahl and Trilok Nath Aggarwal She again called him on 3.7.1991. On that

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

22 was entitled for the declaration as prayed for and dismissal of O.P No.559 of 2006 by the Family Court with respect to item No.17 is liable to be set aside. II. 'E' (item No.1 to 3 in O.P No.559 of 2006) and 'O' schedule property in O.P No.775 of 2006 32. Item No.1 to 3 in O.P No.559

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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

2)(l). We find no infirmity in the ruling of ARR on this aspect. In the above situation, MSCo is rendering services through its employees to MSAS. Therefore, the Department is right in its contention that under the above situation there exists a service PE in India ITA 621/2017 & connected matters Page 54 of 85 (MSAS). Accordingly, the civil appeal