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

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

5 CIT(A) in the respondent/assessee invoking Section 68 of the Act, 1961. He referred to provisions of Section 68 of the Act, 1961 and relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-1) Vs. NRA Iron And Steel Private Limited (2019) 15 SCC 529 (paragraphs

SYED ABBAS MIAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-I,KURNOOL

21, 2017 Supreme Court had dismissed TP (C) 291 of 2017 and directed the High Court to proceed with the matter in accordance with the law and in light of the judgement passed in Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra). 50. State of West Bengal had promulgated the West Bengal Finance Act, 2017 on March 6, 2017. Relevant provisions of the West

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

The appeal is allowed

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

Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act as they stood prior to the amendment made by the Act 16 of 2018 with effect from 26th July 2018. We are referring to Sections 7 and 18 2023 SCC Online SC 280 60 13 as they stood on the date of commission of the offence. Section

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

5) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is perverse and arbitrary? (6) What order or decree? 9. Point No.1: It is the case of the plaintiffs that Muniswamiappa @ Ammojappa as well as his four sons namely Munipapaiah, Ramaiah, Muniappa and Venkataswamy constitute an undivided Hindu joint family and they were having substantial

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

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

5 of 12 question as to whether the document propounded is proved to be the last will and testament of the departed testator. Even so, in dealing with the proof of wills the court will start on the same enquiry as in the case of the proof of documents. The propounder would be called upon to show by satisfactory evidence

The Commissioner of Income Tax - II vs. M/s. Kumar Raja Associates

In the result, all the Tax Revision

Bench: Floor, Opp.Gurudware Bus Stop, Th Stat, 0/O.Meghana Towers, 4 Visakhapatnam. ... Petitioner & M/S.Pulp-N-Pack [P] Limited, Tadimalla ... Respondent : Sri T.C.D.Sekhar, Gp For Commercial Tax Counsel For The Respondent : Sri S Suribabu, Representing On Behalf Of Sri S R R Viswanath Counsel For The Petitioner

21. It is the responsibility of the courts to interpret the text in a marmer which eliminates any element of hardship, inconvenience, injustice, absurdity or anomaly. [G.P. Singh on Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 14th Edn., 2016, pp. 145-170.] This principle of statutory construction has been approved by this Court in Modern School v. Union of India [Modern School

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 4(2)(c) of the Rules, 2015 provides for a certificate from the Village Officer concerned to the effect that the land in respect of which quarrying permit is applied for, is not assigned for any special purpose by the department of Land Revenue. Rule 27 of the Rules, 2015 deals with an application for grant or renewal

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

21 of 66 and the period of one year shall be computed from the date of receipt of information under sub-section (2). (4) Where any duty has not been levied or has been short- levied or erroneously refunded, or interest payable has not been paid, part-paid or erroneously refunded, by reason of,- (a) collusion

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

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

The appeal is allowed

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

68 of 2016whereby and whereunder the Learned Family Court while allowing the petition filed under Section 12(1) (C) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by appellant/petitioner/wife has granted Rs. 30,00,000/-(Thirty Lakh) as permanent alimony to appellant and herein the amount of alimony has been challenged on the ground of miscalculation

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

21 [(1924) 1 KB 256], KB (p. 259) 38 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 46. The classic case which falls for consideration before the English Courts was Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal22, In the aforesaid case Lord Cottenham presided over a previous case in which a canal company brought a case in equity against a land owner. Lord

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

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

21 [(1924) 1 KB 256], KB (p. 259) 38 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 46. The classic case which falls for consideration before the English Courts was Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal22, In the aforesaid case Lord Cottenham presided over a previous case in which a canal company brought a case in equity against a land owner. Lord

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

21 [(1924) 1 KB 256], KB (p. 259) 38 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 46. The classic case which falls for consideration before the English Courts was Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal22, In the aforesaid case Lord Cottenham presided over a previous case in which a canal company brought a case in equity against a land owner. Lord

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

21 [(1924) 1 KB 256], KB (p. 259) 38 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 46. The classic case which falls for consideration before the English Courts was Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal22, In the aforesaid case Lord Cottenham presided over a previous case in which a canal company brought a case in equity against a land owner. Lord

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