Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Energy Solutions International India Pvt Ltd.,

Bench: J. UMA DEVI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

68 ITR 200 (207) 5 273 ITR 50 - 15 - ITA No. 383 of 2016 from the precincts of Section

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

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

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

Section 178 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the Chairman of the company, HVL cannot arrogate unto himself the power to cause such appointment when such power ultimately rests with the Board of Directors. The observation of the two Joint APLs that the evident performance of BCrL, the flagship company of MP Birla Group is deteriorating ever since

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri Byru Venkateswarlu

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

200 on 28.01.1987, the appellant had already informed the AO that complete details regarding the sales-tax number, bank A/c etc., had been given to the AO to prove the genuineness of the transaction. All the transactions and purchases & sales were through brokers, which is the usual practice in this trade. In fact, the payment against the invoice is also

COMMR.OF I.T. A.P.I HYD vs. DIAMOND HATCHERIES (P) LTD

Appeal is allowed

68 of 2001 Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana ...Appellant Versus M/s Highway Cycle Industries Ltd., Ludhiana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), vs. M/s Country Club Inda Limited

200) expatriates, with the approval of Reliance, as required, including subject matter experts (Subject to the experience requirements set forth in Section 3.10 below).‖ 50. A bare perusal of the Services Contract clearly indicates that the task of installation, commissioning and testing was contracted to Nortel ITA 666/2014 & Ors. Page 38 of 57 India and thus, the operations pertaining

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

Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

68 Years, Occ Household, R/o. 14-'l-363, New Agapura, Hyderabad. 4. Saranga Pavan Kumar, S/o. Late Saranga Krishna Murthy, Aged about 42 Years. Occ. Business, R/o. 14-1-363, NewAgapura, Hyderabad. 5. A. Manjula, Wo. A Madhusudhan, Aged about 49 Years, Occ Household, Rlo.5-2-544, Osman Gunj, Risala Abdulla, Nampaily. Hyderabad. 6. Bande Vani, Wo. Bande Srinivas, Aged about

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agrilcultural Market Committee

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

68 Years, Occ Household, R/o. 14-'l-363, New Agapura, Hyderabad. 4. Saranga Pavan Kumar, S/o. Late Saranga Krishna Murthy, Aged about 42 Years. Occ. Business, R/o. 14-1-363, NewAgapura, Hyderabad. 5. A. Manjula, Wo. A Madhusudhan, Aged about 49 Years, Occ Household, Rlo.5-2-544, Osman Gunj, Risala Abdulla, Nampaily. Hyderabad. 6. Bande Vani, Wo. Bande Srinivas, Aged about

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

The appeal is allowed

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

200/- for incidental expenses. A kit comprising various items such as empty bottles, a clean bowl, a C.B.I. metal seal, etc., was prepared. They then proceeded to the location of the incident, arriving at 1:15 pm. xi. PW-3 recalled that during the transaction as part of the entrapment process, both he and PW-8 overheard a conversation conducted

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S Gulf Oil Corporation Pvt. Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

200/­ 2Short term profits 11,03,600/­ 3Short term loss 16,88,750/­ The consolidated  figures  of sale and purchase  of shares are as under:­ Purchase Price Rs. 85,84,750/­ Sale Price Rs. 97,26,800/­ In all total 19 transactions have been done  by   assessee.   Referring   to   transaction   No.10  which is in respect of shares  of Ambuja Port

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Jayalakshmi Chits

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

200/­ 2Short term profits 11,03,600/­ 3Short term loss 16,88,750/­ The consolidated  figures  of sale and purchase  of shares are as under:­ Purchase Price Rs. 85,84,750/­ Sale Price Rs. 97,26,800/­ In all total 19 transactions have been done  by   assessee.   Referring   to   transaction   No.10  which is in respect of shares  of Ambuja Port

The Commissioner of Income Tax - VI vs. M/s. Manikanta Iron AND Hardware

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

200/­ 2Short term profits 11,03,600/­ 3Short term loss 16,88,750/­ The consolidated  figures  of sale and purchase  of shares are as under:­ Purchase Price Rs. 85,84,750/­ Sale Price Rs. 97,26,800/­ In all total 19 transactions have been done  by   assessee.   Referring   to   transaction   No.10  which is in respect of shares  of Ambuja Port

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. K. V. Srinivasa Rao

Section 145 of the Evidence Act. If a contradiction is put to the witness and it is denied by him, then his attention has to be drawn to the statement made by such witness before the Police or any other previous statement and he must be given a reasonable opportunity to explain as to why such contradiction appears

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

M/s. Bathina Technologies (India) Limited, vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II,

Appeals are allowed in part

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Suraj Govindaraj

SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.06.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.60/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE AD-HOC DISTRICT JUDGE, PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, KODAGU, MADIKERI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION ***** THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT

Dr.D. Siva Sankara Rao-HUF vs. I.T.O. Ward-2, Eluru

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 4 of the LA Act. 19.4.1 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 submits that so far as concerns the testimony of PW-3, Mr. Vinod Kumar (purchaser of land), the same is to be rejected as PW-3 himself admits that he was not an income tax payee in 1988 nor did he inform about purchasing

P.V.S.Raju vs. The Addl. C.I.T.

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

Section 4 of the LA Act. 19.4.1 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 submits that so far as concerns the testimony of PW-3, Mr. Vinod Kumar (purchaser of land), the same is to be rejected as PW-3 himself admits that he was not an income tax payee in 1988 nor did he inform about purchasing