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

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed

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

20. (1990) 1 SCC 12 21. (1936) AC 578 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

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Atyam Suryanarayana

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 5Th February 2024. Appearance: Mr. Om Narayan Rai, Advocate Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate …For The Appellant. 1. Heard Sri Om Narayan Rai, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Appellant. None Appears For The Respondent Assessee. 2. Affidavit Of Service Filed Today By Learned Counsel For The Appellant, In Compliance Of The Orders Dated 17.02.2023 & 15.01.2024, Is Taken On Record. Service Of Notice Upon The Respondent Assessee Is Found To Be Sufficient. 3. This Appeal Was Admitted By Order Of This Court Dated 03.09.2010, On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law:- “I) Whether The Learned Tribunal Was Justified On The Facts & Circumstances Of This Case To Follow The Ratio Decided By The

3) of the Act 1961, the assessing officer himself noted that the assessee on being enquired about the nature of transaction with the Mumbai companies submitted on oath on 15.12.2006 before the DDIT (I&B), Kolkata that he has got cash of equivalent amount from the companies and against the same, cheque has been issued. The assessing officer further noticed

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

The appeal is allowed

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

3 also noted that the post-trap formalities were observed by PW-6. xii. PW-4, acting as the Superintendent of South Nadia at Kalyani Bidhan Park Post Office, affirmed his authority to approve the initiation of legal action against a staff member categorized as Group ‘D’ within the mentioned post office. The authorization document dated 27.3.1997, issued

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S. SIVARAMA REDDY

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

68)/SFRC/14- 15/9728 dated 19.02.2016” (viii) It was in this scenario that the Association challenged the impugned Notification, mainly contending that the SFRC recommendations once having been accepted, and notified, exercise of power rescinding the same was arbitrary and illegal, and therefore the rescinding order had necessarily to be set aside. LPA 733/2017 and connected matter Page

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 of the Act?" 2. Learned counsel(s) appearing for the parties jointly submit that they are pressing their case only in respect of the first and second substantial questions of law and not pressing

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

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

20 (1987) 4 SCC 611 37 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 43. The principal argument of the assessee is that all these orders were passed by the AO at the dictate of the superior authority whereas according to the Revenue, the DIT (Inv.) was just monitoring the investigation as the matter was under consideration before the Supreme Court

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

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

20 (1987) 4 SCC 611 37 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 43. The principal argument of the assessee is that all these orders were passed by the AO at the dictate of the superior authority whereas according to the Revenue, the DIT (Inv.) was just monitoring the investigation as the matter was under consideration before the Supreme Court

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

20 (1987) 4 SCC 611 37 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 43. The principal argument of the assessee is that all these orders were passed by the AO at the dictate of the superior authority whereas according to the Revenue, the DIT (Inv.) was just monitoring the investigation as the matter was under consideration before the Supreme Court

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

20 (1987) 4 SCC 611 37 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 43. The principal argument of the assessee is that all these orders were passed by the AO at the dictate of the superior authority whereas according to the Revenue, the DIT (Inv.) was just monitoring the investigation as the matter was under consideration before the Supreme Court

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Hyderabad House Pvt Ltd.,

20,000/- 13.12.2012 K. 30.06.2011 10 years 6,68,520/-* 26.04.2014 L. 02.10.2011 11 years 3,75,000/- 31.05.2014 M. 02.05.2012 14 years 3,75,000/- 29.09.2014 N. 04.02.2013 4 years 3,75,000/- 29.07.2013 * excluding medical expenses also awarded. 27. The above table graphically demonstrates not only divergence of opinion but also inconsistencies in approach. The incongruity is vivid

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

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

3 of 12 8. In the Codicil Ex.OW1/4, on the other hand, the bequest made to Sh.Dinesh Bahl in the Will dated 12.08.1986 has been transferred to his son, Sh.Rajiv Bahl on account of poor health of Sh.Dinesh Bahl i.e. the front portion stands bequeathed to S/Shri Ashok Bahl and Rajiv Bahl. All other assets were divided equally amongst S/Shri

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

Sections 73, 74 and 75 49 of the Indian Registration Act, indicate the formalities. 49. When the execution is denied by the seller after completing formalities of execution, the Sub- Registrar would get authority to admit the execution. The purchaser has a right to present the document for compulsory registration. In this case, it was not the case

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-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