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, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed

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

239 57. AIR 1963 SC 791 58. 46 S.T.C. 63 59. (1999) 3 SCC 632 60. (1969) 3 SCR 674 61. (1990) 184 ITR 129 (SC) 62. (2007) 8 SCC 412 63. (2003) 4 SCC 184 64. (2003) 11 SCC 129 65. 1994 ECR 349 (SC) 66. 1995 Supp (3) SCC 1 67. (2008) 224 ELT 337 (S.C.) 68

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

SECTION 19(1) OF THE BDA ACT I.E., ANNEX-P, IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONER IN SY.NO.30/6 & 30/7, K. NARAYANAPURA VILLAGE, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, MEASURING 22 GUNTAS AND 26 GUNTAS RESPECTIVELY. IN W.P.NO.55081/2014: BETWEEN: MR N. R. VENKATESHMURTHY S/O SRI. RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE

The Commissioner of Income Tax - Central vs. M/s. Himagiri Biotech Pvt. Ltd.,

68,384/-; as on 31.03.2008, it was `17,10,43,019/- and as on 31.03.2009 it was `15,28,48,354/-. Sundry debtors as on 31.03.2006 was `22,82,38,320/-; as on 31.03.2007 it was `28,58,66,349/-; as on 31.3.2008 it was `22,53,78,479/-; as on 31.03.2009 stood at `11,61,95,359/-. Thus, there

PR COMMR OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. K RAVINDER REDDY, HYDERABAD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

239) ITR 879 (AAR). 37. Mr. Bhatia also refuted Mr. Jolly‟s submission with respect to attribution and argued that the margin of 35% was correct and reasonable. Analysis and Conclusions: 38. The relevant provision of the DTAA, i.e the Indo-US DTAA reads as follows: “Article 5.1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term „permanent establishment' means

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

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

Accordingly, all these STRs are allowed

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

239 and in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 2(1) vs. Datacraft India Ltd. reported in [2011 (9) ITR(Trib) 712 (Mumbai)] in support of their contention that when any device is used as a part of the computer and its functions, then it would also be termed as computer. 4. Per contra, supporting the concurrent findings

The Commissioner of Income tax-III, Hyderabad. vs. Delco Remy Electricals (India) Limited

68) for the Defendant(s) No. 3 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE Date : 27/09/2019 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The appellant—insurance company has assailed judgement and award dated 14.09.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Page 1 of 7 C/FA/199/2006 JUDGMENT Claims Tribunal, Gandhidham-Kutch in MACP No. 232 of 2002 whereunder, the claim petition preferred by the respondent No.1 herein is partly