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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

201 IPS SchQol of Management and Education .... Appellant Tlrough: Mr. Sanjay Sharawit, Advocate. Versus National Council for Teachei Education & Am Respoi-iderils Through: Mr.Mayank Manish wi!;h Mr.AmiLesh Kumar,Advocaes. LPA No. 315 Of 2011 IP College of Education Appellant Through Mi Sanjay Shaiawat, Advocate Veisus • Naiona1 Council for Teacher Education & Anr. Respondents Through: Mr.Mayank Maiish with M.r.Amitesh Kumar, AdvOcates

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

Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

201 1 : Appeal filed Under Section 96 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 04.02.201 1 passed in O.S.No. 2 of 1999 on the file of the lX Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Between: 1. SARANGA KRISHNA MURTHY (Died per LR's RR3 to 6), S/o. LAte Laxmi Narayana Business R/o. H.No

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agrilcultural Market Committee

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

201 1 : Appeal filed Under Section 96 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 04.02.201 1 passed in O.S.No. 2 of 1999 on the file of the lX Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Between: 1. SARANGA KRISHNA MURTHY (Died per LR's RR3 to 6), S/o. LAte Laxmi Narayana Business R/o. H.No

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

68. It is pointed out that in the earlier years Gopal Das Bhawan was still under construction and the interest was capitalised only up to the stage of completion of the project under „capital work and progress.‟ The interest on the CC limit for the subsequent period, after completion of project, was rightly claimed and allowed as a revenue expense

Gutta Venkata Rama Devi vs. The Income Tax Officer

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

68 of 171 with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA + LA.AP. 256/2017 POJA .Apelant Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR .Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

68 of 171 with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA + LA.AP. 256/2017 POJA .Apelant Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR .Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Sri Laxmi Narasimha Wines,

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

68 of 171 with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA + LA.AP. 256/2017 POJA .Apelant Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR .Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Shri Raaj Kumar Jain

Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused has denied his implication in the case/offence and has claimed that he was tortured and that his nails were extracted, his genitals were burnt and petrol was put in his anus. He offered to get himself medically examined to prove his allegations. The accused SK also claimed that he was extended other tortures

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

68. It is pointed out that in the earlier years Gopal Das Bhawan was still under construction and the interest was capitalised only up to the stage of completion of the project under „capital work and progress.‟ The interest on the CC limit for the subsequent period, after completion of project, was rightly claimed and allowed as a revenue expense

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

Sections reads thus:- “26. Purpose for which the market development fund may be expended.The marketing development fund shall be utilised out of following purposes: (i) better marketing of agricultural produce ; (ii) marketing of agricultural produce on co-operative lines ; (iii) collection and dissemination of market rates and news ; (iv) grading and standardisation of agricultural produce; (v) general improvements

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

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

1 and 2 companies and certain other individuals as Directors of 4 listed companies, 3 subsidiaries of one listed company and an unlisted company is bad in law since the Joint APLs merely represents the estate of PDB and thus, had no rights to seek appointment of Directors in companies in which PDB was not a "Member". Further, without prejudice

The Commissioner of Income Tax - VI vs. Sri Danda Dharanidhar

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68. Our conclusion in terms of the application of Section 194-H of the IT Act to the supplementary commission amounts earned by the travel agent is unequivocally in favour of the Revenue. Section 194- H is to be read with Section 182 of the Contract Act. If a relationship between two parties as culled out from

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

1. STATE OF KARNTAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001 2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE-560020 3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE-560020 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.V. SHASHIKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI. M.N. RAMANJANEYA GOWDA, ADVOCATE

THE COMM. OF INCOME TAX RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/S B.KRISHNA MURTHY AND OTHERS

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

201 read with 120-B IPC within my cognizance.” Crl.A.247/2000 & Crl.A.81/2003 Page 12 of 55 23. There were separate additional charges under Section 411 IPC qua some of the co-accused being found in possession of stolen property. A total of 143 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. A-1’s statement under Section

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 Director of Income Tax [Exempetions] vs. Share India

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

201 MP. NO:762 0F 2015 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct theRespondentnottoalienateorcreatechargeoverthesuitpropertyi.e.land admeasuring Ac.5.00 Gts forming part of Sy' No' 572' 573 and 574' Ghatkesar village and Gram Panchayat, Ghatkesar Mandal' R'R District pending

The commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s Lanco Kondapalli Power (P) Ltd

1-2-oswp-1494-2023-J+.docx a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its corporate office at "BKT House", C/15, Trade World, Kamala Mills Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. …Petitioner ~ versus ~ 1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Department of Registration and Stamps, Ministry of Revenue, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai