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

Section 68 of the Act for Assessment Years (AYs) 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. These amounts were primarily towards share application money received from various companies. The AO made additions/disallowance of Rs. 7,05,00,0001- on account of unexplained share capital/share application money received by the assessee company from Paradigm

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

The appeals are dismissed

Section 68 of the Act for Assessment Years (AYs) 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. These amounts were primarily towards share application money received from various companies. The AO made additions/disallowance of Rs. 7,05,00,0001- on account of unexplained share capital/share application money received by the assessee company from Paradigm

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

The appeals are allowed

24) That the VDIS certificate dt. 31.03.1998 under Section 68(2) of VDIS, 1997 had been issued to the Assessee

SRS AND Sri Sai Ganesh Productions vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Central)

Section 68, 69 and 69A of the incremental peak credit of the respective years, in the subject assessment years, taken from all the accounts to be perfectly in order. There can be a reasonable assumption that the incremental credit would be the income of the assessee, the remittances being found in favour of the assessee and the disbursal

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

Appeal is partly allowed

24 YEARS 3 5(c) RAKSHITHA M. D/O. LATE MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS 5A TO 5C ARE R/AT NO.58, CHIKKANNAMMA TEMPLE STREET JORIPET, BENGALURU - 560 002. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. SUBASH REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING) SRI. B.S. SHRIKANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5(a) TO R5(c) R1 DEAD] THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION

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

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed

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

24, Section V is from Chapters 25 to 27 and Section VI is from Chapters 28 to 38. 62. Chapter I in Section I, which relates to live animals, covers all live animals except (a) fish and crustaceans, mollusks and other aquatic invertebrates, (b) cultures of micro-organisms and other products, and (c) animals of Heading

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

24 of the Evidence Act to submit that the use of expression ‘appears’ imports a lesser degree of proof than ‘proved’ and has been introduced in the statute with the object of securing fairness in admitting confessions into evidence. 39. The circumstance of filing application at Delhi for recording of confession under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is also highlighted, inasmuch

PENDURTHI CHANDRASEKHAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The appeal is allowed and all the four substantial

68 of the Income Tax Act, is right in law in holding that there should be sufficient reasons for receiving gifts though it is from father-in-law and the gift is covered by the provisions of Section 56 of the Act? 2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Chirla Rama Reddy, Contract

Appeal is dismissed with costs

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice N.K.Sudhindrarao R.S.A.No.70/2007

24. Upon conclusion of the trial after the remand, the learned trial judge dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on 26-08-2002. Against which regular appeals came to be filed by the plaintiff- M/s. K.T.Plantations Pvt. Ltd., and 3rd defendant – Mr.R.Devdas in R.A.Nos.33/2002 and 35/2002. R.A.No.33/2002 came to be allowed and R.A.No.35/2002 came to be dismissed

Commissioner of Income Tax- IT and TP vs. M/s. Louis Berger International Inc.,

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

68, on the date on which [a bill of entry for home consumption in respect of such goods is presented under that section]; (c) in the case of any other goods, on the date of payment of duty: [PROVIDED that if a bill of entry has been presented before the date of entry inwards of the vessel

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s. Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

68, on the date on which [a bill of entry for home consumption in respect of such goods is presented under that section]; (c) in the case of any other goods, on the date of payment of duty: [PROVIDED that if a bill of entry has been presented before the date of entry inwards of the vessel

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

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

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Hycons Infrastructure (India) Ltd.

The appeals are dismissed

68 74 33 4. Tyres 118 73 191 62 39 5. Cosmetics 170 33 203 84 53 6. Misc. Chemicals 266 28 294 90 31 7. Soap Detergent 117 73 190 64 47 8. Article of plastic 48 12 60 80 22 9. DG sets 15 24 39 39 29 10. Medicines 132 27 159 83 26 Total

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

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

section 313 Cr.P.C. accused Subash Gupta had admitted that he had an inclination short of lust and infatuation towards Sujata Shah.” Crl.A.247/2000 & Crl.A.81/2003 Page 17 of 55 Other findings of the trial Court 33. The trial Court concluded that there was nothing to show that all the accused had met at Hotel Mohan at Ashok Vihar on 5th June

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s Indur Green Power Private Limited

In the result, all the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 2(15) of the Act?. 44. We are dealing with a taxing statute. The intention of the legislature in a taxation statute is to be gathered from the language of the provisions particularly where the language is plain and unambiguous. In a Taxing Act, it is not possible to assume any intention or the governing purpose

THE COMMI.OF INCOME TAX,HYD. vs. VAIBHAV

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

68 of the Act as "Income from other sources". Thus, by the assessment order dated 30.03.2000 passed under Section 1a3(3) of the Act, the aforesaid addidons were made to the total income of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the above order of the assessment, assessee preferred first appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V (C-entral