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

24 of 66 statement or suppression of facts” reopening has to be done within one year from the „relevant date‟. Where it falls within the categories demarcated in terms of Section 28 (4) as amended, the time period is „five years‟. 25. The concept of „relevant date‟ has been elaborated in Explanation 1. This is more or less conforms

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

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 - 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

68, on the date on which [a bill of entry for home consumption in respect of such goods is presented under that section]; (c) in the case of any other goods, on the date of payment of duty: [PROVIDED that if a bill of entry has been presented before the date of entry inwards of the vessel

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

68, on the date on which [a bill of entry for home consumption in respect of such goods is presented under that section]; (c) in the case of any other goods, on the date of payment of duty: [PROVIDED that if a bill of entry has been presented before the date of entry inwards of the vessel

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

24 of SQ le i which have been framed under Section 31 of the Act. Rule 8, which deals with inspectioh, reads, as follows: • ' . 8. Inspection - (1) The Council may inspect the recognized institutions in the manner specified 'in sub- • rules (2) to (8). . ... The Council shall approve a panel of names of' experts in teacher education or educationi.i

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

The appeals are allowed

24) That the VDIS certificate dt. 31.03.1998 under Section 68(2) of VDIS, 1997 had been issued to the Assessee

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed

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

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 and other products, and (c) animals of Heading

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

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

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

24 of 300 Appeal filed by Harsh Vardhan Lodha GA/1/2020 (APO/92/2020) Prayer a. Leave be granted to the petitioner to file a Memorandum of Appeal from the judgment and order dated 18th September, 2020 passed by the Hon’ble Justice Sahidullah Munshi

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

Appeal is dismissed,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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 a slab building

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

24 necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary.” 11. As a mandate of clause ‘C’, a Will is required to be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom should have seen the testator’s sign or put his mark on the Will or should

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

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

2(h) 'will' means the legal declaration of the intention of a testator with respect to his property which he desires to be carried into effect after his death; (b) 'codicil' means an instrument made in relation to a will, and explaining, altering or adding to its depositions, and shall be deemed to form part of the will;" 10. Section

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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 are not brought on record, to maintain

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

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

The appeal is allowed

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

68 of 2016whereby and whereunder the Learned Family Court while allowing the petition filed under Section 12(1) (C) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by appellant/petitioner/wife has granted Rs. 30,00,000/-(Thirty Lakh) as permanent alimony to appellant and herein the amount of alimony has been challenged on the ground of miscalculation

PENDURTHI CHANDRASEKHAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The appeal is allowed and all the four substantial

68 of the Income Tax Act, is right in law in holding that there should be sufficient reasons for receiving gifts though it is from father-in-law and the gift is covered by the provisions of Section 56 of the Act? 2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal