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

30 RNT, J & HN, J TREVC. No. 83 of 2008 & batch condition or restriction under sub-section (2) of Section 9 it would be granting an exemption generally for the purposes of Section 5A (1) (vi) of APGST Act. 46. The question whether G.O.Ms.No.l091 is a notification granting general exemption under Section

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

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

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Sri Ch.Govardhan Naidu

The appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

30,000/- made during the year out of total loan of Rs.18,20,000/- in respect of creditor Shri Anil Kumar Dengwani as genuine, the learned Tribunal was correct in confirming entire addition made under section 68 of the Act?" 2

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

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

30 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Further Section 5 of the Indian Succession Act speaks of succession to immovable and movable property of the deceased, only properties bequeathable. “Property” connotes an ownership or right which does not depend on the courtesy of others. It signifies a beneficial right to or a thing considered as a having money value

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

The appeals are allowed

68(2) of VDIS, 1997 had been issued to the Assessee is recorded in the order dt. 10.03.2000 passed by the CIT(Appeals) and also in the subsequent order passed by ITAT on 17.08.2004.Therefore, the issuance of the said certificate to the Assessee cannot be doubted. 9 25) If the said certificate had been issued and has not been cancelled

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

The appeal is allowed

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

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 100 rupee notes, treated with phenoptholene powder by PW-7, initiating the trap demonstration

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed

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

30. (2018) 4 SCC 743 31. (1908) 6 CLR 469 32. (1930) AC 124 33. (1961) 3 SCR 242 34. AIR 1967 SC 1801 35. (2002) 9 SCC 232 36. (1985) 3 SCC 314 37. (1999) 5 SCC 138 38. (1986) 2

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

30 cover of Section 71 of the 1872 Act. Such a sanction would not only be incompatible with the scheme of Section 63 of the Act read with Section 68 of the 1872 Act but also would be extinctive of the paramountcy and sacrosanctity thereof, a consequence, not legislatively intended. If the evidence of the witnesses produced

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

Appeal is dismissed,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68,000/- and after furnishing all the documents, P.W1 was issued a notice to pay income tax for a sum of Rs.1,76,000/-; that on preferring appeal before the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam, the matter was remanded to the Income Tax Officer, Ward-ll, Vizianagaram with a direction to assess the value and at that relevant point

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 3(2) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. 39. It is quite explicit from the available facts and evidence that, in order to arrange separate Bank loans for Mat.Appeal No.242 of 2012 & conn. cases 27 purchasing 'E' and 'O' schedule properties, in spite of executing Ext.B1 agreement in the name of Sri.Joy, separate agreements were executed

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

30-7-1992 Date of filing of appeal before District Registrar in RA No.3/1992: 7-3-1992 Date of filing of the suit is :18-6-1992 64. At this stage, it is necessary to mention, Section 34 and 35 of the Indian Registration Act, which read as under: “34. Enquiry before registration by registering officer.—(l) Subject

The Commissioner of Income TAx-IV, vs. M/s. Mahaveer Enterprises (India) Limited

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2) After considering the claims of the persons interested in the vacant land, made to the competent authority in pursuance of the notification published under sub-section (1), the competent authority shall determine the nature and extent of such claims and pass such orders as it deems fit. (3) At any time after the publication of the notification under

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