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

The appeal is allowed

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

20,000/- into an account. Despite a deposit slip certifying a balance of Rs. 29,516.20/- on the 12.3.1997, the ledger indicated a balance of only Rs. 9,516.20/-. When confronted, PW-6 59 admitted to the discrepancy. Subsequently, the ledger was provided to the Superintendent of the post office for further action against PW- 6. xix. During cross-examination

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

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

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

20" 29. At this juncture, we may refdr witiT profit to the RuICs, namely, the • National CQuncil for Teacher Education Rules, 1997' (for short thc Rules') •'LPA 24212011 with connected matters ' . page 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

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

20 immovable properties which were joint in nature. The said Muniswamiappa died on 03.09.1935. After the demise of Muniswamiappa, there were serious differences amongst the brothers with regard to discharging of the debts and other liabilities which resulted in executing a release deed in favour of Late Munipapaiah. The said deed was registered on 06.01.1936. On the strength of release

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

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

68 deals with the proof of the execution of the document required by law to be attested; and it provides that such a document shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution. These provisions prescribe the requirements and the nature of proof which must be satisfied

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-1 vs. M/s. New River Software System Pvt Ltd.,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68 of the Act for Assessment Years (AYs) 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. These amounts were primarily towards share application money received from various companies. The AO made additions/disallowance of Rs. 7,05,00,0001- on account of unexplained share capital/share application money received by the assessee company from Paradigm Hotel

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Adaptec [India] Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

68 of the Act for Assessment Years (AYs) 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. These amounts were primarily towards share application money received from various companies. The AO made additions/disallowance of Rs. 7,05,00,0001- on account of unexplained share capital/share application money received by the assessee company from Paradigm Hotel

M/s. Maruthi Movies vs. Income Tax Officer

Bench: This Court & Making The Same A Rule Of Court, Alongwith Decree Against Respondents Awarding Rs.5,35,920/- Paid By The Petitioner To The Arbitrator As Their Share Of Fees As Per Order Dated 21.12.2010. 2. Respondent No.1 Has Filed Its Objections To The Award Under Section 30 & 33 Of The Act In Form Of I.A. No.9067/2011. Respondent No.2 Has Also Filed Its Objections To The Award.

20 of the Act of 1963. On plain reading of provisions of Chapter II, it cannot be laid down as a matter of law that a development agreement is not specifically enforceable. Such a contract is enforceable if it falls within the clauses (a) or (b) of Section 10 provided such contract does not fall

SRS AND Sri Sai Ganesh Productions vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Central)

Section 68, 69 and 69A and hence the addition made in the name of the assessee under ITA Nos. 303/2013 & con. 20

Commissioner of Income Tax-V, vs. M/s.Sirveen Control Systems

Appeal is partly allowed

20 YEARS 5A TO 5C ARE R/AT NO.58, CHIKKANNAMMA TEMPLE STREET JORIPET, BENGALURU - 560 002. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. SUBASH REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING) SRI. B.S. SHRIKANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5(a) TO R5(c) R1 DEAD] THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC,AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 05.08.2011 PASSED

Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. M/S Sri Ramanjaneya Poultry Farm Pvt., Ltd.,

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

20 and that words in that section were wide enough to take within its sweep even erroneous orders of assessment and would be entitled to claim protection against the institution of a civil suit. The court then observed: "The jurisdiction of a civil court can be excluded even without an express provision. In every case, the question about

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

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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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 sub-section (1) the competent authority may, by notification published in the Official Gazette of the State concerned, declare that the excess vacant land referred

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Dr.Kodela Siva Prasada Rao

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 68 cannot be invoked. 9. Aggrieved thereby, the Revenue has filed the present appeal before this Court. 10. Heard Sri B.Narasimha Sarma, learned counsel for the Revenue at the stage of admission. 11. Sri Sarma contended that the Tribunal’s findings are contrary to law, material on record and vitiated by irregularities in exercise of jurisdiction, that

M/S. SRIMAN SAI SECURITIES INV. FIN. LTD., vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,KARIMNAGAR.

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,M.S.K.JAISWAL

Section 68 of the Act and the legal position referred to above, we are of the opinion that the assessee has failed to discharge its initial burden to prove that the money of Rs.48,58,000/- was collected through share capital.     CVNR, J. & MSKJ, J.  itta_137_2005        10  Therefore, the A.O. is wholly justified in rejecting the stand

PENDURTHI CHANDRASEKHAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The appeal is allowed and all the four substantial

68. The fourth question of law relates to the addition of interest accrued on the unsecured loan granted to M/s. Dakshin Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, we shall answer the questions of law category wise. Substantial questions of law 1 to 3: 16. All these substantial questions of law revolve around the gift allegedly made by the father

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

The appeal is allowed

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

20 41. Section 12 of the Act, which is pertinent in the present case, can be resorted to either of the parties for annulling the marriage as the grounds set fourth therein are satisfied. Section 12 of the Act is quoted below: “12. Voidable marriages. - (1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this

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

20) Effect of Section 28 (11) 66. The mere fact that Section 28(11) has been given retrospective effect does not solve the essential problem pointed out by the Supreme Court in the Sayed Ali case, which is the absence of the assigning of functions to W.P. (C) 441/2013 & connected matters Page 48 of 66 „proper officers‟ under

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

20. As is evident from a reading of Section 14, the value of imported and exported goods is recognized to be the transaction value and which expression is explained to mean the price actually paid or payable for those goods when sold for export to India or for export from India for delivery at the time and place