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

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

21 13.06.1956 and he died on 27.07.1966. Under the Will he has bequeathed the properties in favour of his daughter Smt. Parvathamma, the defendant No.1. As per the Will ‘A’ schedule property was bequeathed in favour of defendant No.1 Parvathamma, ‘B’ schedule property in favour of his sister Achamma, ‘C’ schedule property in favour of plaintiffs. Nagappa Reddy was named

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

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

Section 68 of the Evidence Act?” FAO No. 327/2007 Page 9 of 12 21. While replying the first question

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

21-26 + ITA Nos.596, 597, 598, 599, 600 & 601/2015 PR. CIT ....Appellant Through: Mr. Dileep Shivpuri and Mr. Vikrant A. Maheshwari, Advocates. Versus CLARIDGES HOTELS (P) LTD. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Aryama Sundaram, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Kapur and Mr. Ajay Wadhwa, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI NAJMI WAZIRI

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

The appeals are dismissed

21-26 + ITA Nos.596, 597, 598, 599, 600 & 601/2015 PR. CIT ....Appellant Through: Mr. Dileep Shivpuri and Mr. Vikrant A. Maheshwari, Advocates. Versus CLARIDGES HOTELS (P) LTD. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Aryama Sundaram, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Kapur and Mr. Ajay Wadhwa, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI NAJMI WAZIRI

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 the above provision was justified. The peak credit as determined in the subject year represented the funds available with the assessee; was the finding of the Tribunal. The Tribunal also held that the deduction could have been

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

Appeal is partly allowed

Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act. It was submitted that as defendants did not examine attesting witnesses, gift deed was liable to be held not proved and trial court erred in holding that it was binding upon plaintiffs insofar as ‘B’ schedule properties. 19. On the other hand, Shri B.S. Srikanth & Shri V Subhash Reddy, learned counsel for respondents

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s. Madhu Enterproses

Bench: Adverting To The Facts Of The Case It Is Beneficial To Mention Here That No Affidavit Had Been Filed On Behalf Of The State (Present Appellant In Both The Appeals) In Either Of The Two Writ Petitions. Learned Counsel Appearing For The State Before The Hon’Ble Single Judge Had Agreed For Disposal Of The Two Writ Petitions Without Affidavits Being Filed On The Ground That Arguments Have To Be Advanced On Question Of Law Only. 3. A Compendium Of Facts Relevant For Disposal Of These Appeals Is As Follows:

68 of WP No. 24788 (W) of 2010. The aforesaid notification of 2007 contemplates deposit of fees for transfer of “lease hold rights” for different categories of land in Kalyani Township. The transfer fee from the respondent company has been demanded in terms of the circular of December 2007. 4 5. Further the jurisdictional District Magistrate did not give permission

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

The appeals are allowed

21) Challenging the same, the instant appeals have been filed by the Assessee. 22) We have perused the record and noted the contentions of the parties and also inquired from the learned Counsel for the Department about the issuance of the certificate under Section 68

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri Byru Venkateswarlu

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

21. The provisions of section 68 permitting the assessing officer to treat unexplained cash credit as income are enabling

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

21 of 50 Sub-section (4) to Section 14 requires publication in the Gazette. it reads as follows: "(4) Every order granting or refusing recognition to an institution for a course -.or training in teacher education under sub-section (3) shall be published in the Official Gazette and cOmmunicated in writing for appropriate acioh to such institution

THE APR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. SHRI TUMMALA SRI RAM BABU

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Section 9 of the Act was directed to be listed alongwith O.M.P (COMM) 432/2017. Both the petitions were taken up together on 19.12.2019. Order was reserved in the present petition while O.M.P(COMM) 432/2017 was directed to be listed on 23.03.2020, as the order in that petition was dependent on the outcome of the present petition

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

The Commissioner of Income -Tax - III, vs. Shri Taher Ali

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68; and in particular paragrpah 8; 2. V.K.Jhamb V C.M.Bhatia, 1985 Bom. R.C. 293; 3. Trikam Jivraj Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1969 Gujarat 69' 4. Bai Devmani V. Raviskankar, AIR 1929 Bombay 147. He also relied upon Section 21

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. The Andhra Petro Chemicals Limited

68 of the State Universities Act, 1973. The representation submitted by him was rejected by the Chancellor vide order dated 19.05.2017. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Chancellor and has sought other reliefs also, which are extracted above. In his representation made to the Chancellor, petitioner contended that respondent no. 4 was not qualified

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.

21 authority require execution of tripartite agreement between the Owners, flat-buyers and concerned authority the Owners undertake to execute such agreement. The impartable areas such as roads, parks etc shall be enjoyed by flat owners without any let or hindrance or preference of any kind. The parties hereto undertake that the Builders shall ensure that the buildings are raised

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Jyothi Wines,

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

68, proposing addition of unexplained credits; but eventually the additions were made under Section 69 as undisclosed investments. There was a further addition made of Rs.7,48,750/-, which was a cheque payment made by one of the assessee- firms to T.S.Asok, one of its partners, which was said to be refund of advance paid on a property