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

22 and challenging the validity of the release deed made in favour of Late Munipapaiah. The said suit was decreed. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in the aforesaid suit, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.67/1975. The said appeal came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 25.09.1978. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the courts below, preferred

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

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

Section 68 of the Evidence Act; a codicil will attract applicability of the provide, submitted the learned counsel for the appellants. In our opinion, such a submission cannot be countenanced. Williams states in The Law of Wills, Vol. 1 (1987 Edn.)- "Codicils which in form and execution are similar to a will are useful for the purpose of making

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.Visakha Industries Ltd

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

22,13,020/- was remitted by Dr.K.P.Ali in the account of the appellant and the same was accepted after verifying the confirmation, credit worthiness and genuineness of the transaction was given due credence. It was found that no reason was given for disbelieving the receipts from Dr.K.P.Ali during the assessment year in question. The First Appellate Authority found that

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

sections 68 and 69 of the Act. In consideration of all these observations, we are inclined to hold that the share application money as raised in the grounds of appeal ITA Nos.547/2013 & other connected matters Page 9 of 13 cannot be held as non-genuine and added as income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. Consequently, additions

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

The appeals are dismissed

sections 68 and 69 of the Act. In consideration of all these observations, we are inclined to hold that the share application money as raised in the grounds of appeal ITA Nos.547/2013 & other connected matters Page 9 of 13 cannot be held as non-genuine and added as income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. Consequently, additions

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

22 (2019) 19 SCC 801 1994 Supp (3) SCC 606 23 33 RNT, J & HN, J TREVC. No. 83 of 2008 & batch determine whether the exemption is applicable to the assessee or not. Once such exemption is indeed .found to be applicable to the assessee, a liberal approach is to be adopted by the Court in construing the language, such

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

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

The appeals are allowed

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

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

22,895 under Section 68 of the Act, learned counsel urged that this amount was reflected even in the previous

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Dr.Kodela Siva Prasada Rao

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

22-12-2006 stating that one N.Mohan, an NRI, a resident of USA had given the amounts to him and also gave a copy of the assessee’s bank account in S.B.H., Secretariat Branch, Hyderabad. On verification of this bank account, the assessing officer found that the assessee himself made a note of gifts received in the bank account statements

PENDURTHI CHANDRASEKHAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The appeal is allowed and all the four substantial

Section 68. 8. Similarly, the Assessing Officer added interest income as per the TDS Certificate, to the Income Tax return. 9. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) granted relief in so far as the unsecured loan received by the assessee from Smt. Shanti Chowdary, who was none else than the wife of the assessee. This was on the basis

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 Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri Byru Venkateswarlu

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68 permitting the assessing officer to treat unexplained cash credit as income are enabling provisions for making certain additions, where there is failure by the assessee to give an explanation or where the explanation is not to the satisfaction of the assessing officer. However, the addition made on this count would not automatically justify imposition of penalty under 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

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

22) (Not having NET/SLET) (ANNEXURE NO. 05). B. pass an order / direction that the Kumaun University act as per UGC (Minimum Qualification Required For The Appointment And Career Advancement Of Teachers In Universities and Institutions Affiliated To It) (3rd AMENDMENT), Regulation 2009 published on The Gazette of India dated 17th July 2009 (ANNEXURE NO. 03) and appoint the petitioner

The Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. St.Josphs Educational Society

Accordingly, all these STRs are allowed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,M.S.K.JAISWAL

section 6 of the Act.:- 12.5% / 14% as applicable during relevant years.” 7. The petitioner-assessee was self-classifying the networking cables as per the entries mentioned in Part A of Schedule IV to the RVAT Act and paying tax accordingly at the [2023/RJJP/012108] (14 of 22) [STR-182/2017] rate of 4% / 5%. After the survey conducted

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.

22 48. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Jaichandlal Ashok Kumar and Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Nawab Yossuf and Anr., MANU/WB/0546/2013, he submits that here again the Court modified the Arbitral Award to grant specific performance of a Collaboration/Development Agreement. He submits that in the present case not only was the property identified, the plans

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