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, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed

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

X 30cm above 15 cm from the ground is removed with the bark shaver, leaving 2 mm thick live bark which will facilitate easy and smooth freshening of the blaze. The surface should be very smooth and should look reddish in colour. Step 2. 30 Mark of blaze frame and central groove:- The blaze frame is vertically fixed

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

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

x) Even if the provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC many not be attracted for protecting interest of the parties in the pending administration suit but the Court can appropriately deal with the situation wherever it relates to protection and preservation of the estate of the deceased in the pending proceedings. Thus, the Court held that

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

The appeal is allowed

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

x. Following the complaint, PW-7 was assigned to investigate the matter. On the 18.3.1997 at 8:30 am, PW-2 arrived at the C.B.I. office and was accompanied by PW-5, an independent witness. PW-7 then disclosed the purpose of their gathering and reviewed the contents of the complaint filed by PW-2. Subsequently, PW-2 produced three

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

The Commissioner of Income-Tax - VI, vs. Shri Mekala Bal Reddy

x 2 cm on right leg. Opinion:- Both injuries were caused by blunt object. Injuries were fresh. Injury no.2 was simple and kept under observation.” 28. The injury report was proved as Exhibit Kha-'1' by P.W-4 being in his handwriting and signature. 16 29. With regard to other injured, on the accused side, P.W-4 stated that he had examined

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Chirla Rama Reddy, Contract

Appeal is dismissed with costs

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice N.K.Sudhindrarao R.S.A.No.70/2007

24. Upon conclusion of the trial after the remand, the learned trial judge dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on 26-08-2002. Against which regular appeals came to be filed by the plaintiff- M/s. K.T.Plantations Pvt. Ltd., and 3rd defendant – Mr.R.Devdas in R.A.Nos.33/2002 and 35/2002. R.A.No.33/2002 came to be allowed and R.A.No.35/2002 came to be dismissed

EVEREST ORGANICS LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF I.T., HYDERABAD

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

X - Statement of accused recorded by CBI as containing 258 pages. xi) SET - XI - Containing statements of witnesses by CBI having 125 pages. 28 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters xii)SET - XII - Containing a report sent by DDIT, Unit - I to DI about appraisal of some of the documents containing 18 pages. 26. Aforesaid letter dated

C. SANYASI RAJU vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIZAG.

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

X - Statement of accused recorded by CBI as containing 258 pages. xi) SET - XI - Containing statements of witnesses by CBI having 125 pages. 28 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters xii)SET - XII - Containing a report sent by DDIT, Unit - I to DI about appraisal of some of the documents containing 18 pages. 26. Aforesaid letter dated

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.Samrakshna Electricals Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

X - Statement of accused recorded by CBI as containing 258 pages. xi) SET - XI - Containing statements of witnesses by CBI having 125 pages. 28 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters xii)SET - XII - Containing a report sent by DDIT, Unit - I to DI about appraisal of some of the documents containing 18 pages. 26. Aforesaid letter dated

M/s.GVK Petro Chemicals Private Limited,(Novo Resins AND vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,

X - Statement of accused recorded by CBI as containing 258 pages. xi) SET - XI - Containing statements of witnesses by CBI having 125 pages. 28 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters xii)SET - XII - Containing a report sent by DDIT, Unit - I to DI about appraisal of some of the documents containing 18 pages. 26. Aforesaid letter dated

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

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 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S.SREC PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Sections 66, 84 and 79 & 79 (2) (VIII) of MV Act. 4. While relying upon a case of M.C. Mehta Vs. UOI, (1977) 8 SCC 770, the learned counsel submitted that the respondent Nos.1 & 2 are guilty of violation of permit conditions on account of the grounds mentioned below:- a) That suitable speed control device was not fitted

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

SECTION 24(2) OF RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT 2013. IN W.P.NO.797/2014: BETWEEN: SRI.N.RAMAIAH S/O. LATE NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/A NO.708, HEANNUR MAIN ROAD, KAVERI SERVICE STATION, KALYAN NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 043. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. G. PAPI REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKASA