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

The appeal is allowed

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

1:15 pm. xi. PW-3 recalled that during the transaction as part of the entrapment process, both he and PW-8 overheard a conversation conducted in Bengali between the appellant and PW-2, witnessing the exchange of the bribe money. Following the conversation, the entrapment operation unfolded, leading to the apprehension of the appellant. PW- 3 also noted that

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

1 Furnishing any wrong infoimation or concealment of facts in the application, which may have bearing on the decision making process or the decision pertaining to grant of recognition, shall result in withdrawal of recognition Of the institution besides other legal action against its management; order of withdrawal of recognition shall be passed after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing through

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

26 of 66 Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in Commissioner of Customs versus Sayed Ali and Anr. (Civil Appeal Nos. 4294-4295 of 2002) held that only a customs officer who has been specifically assigned the duties of assessment and re-assessment in the jurisdiction area is competent to issue a notice for the demand of duty

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

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

The appeal is allowed

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

iii) that marital intercourse with the consent of the petitioner has not taken place since the discovery by the petitioner of the existence of the said ground.” 42. Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act embodies grounds on which a marriage can be declared void and annulled by a decree of nullity. Clause (c) of sub-section (1

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed

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

68 upon the said ammonium nitrate, fell upon the appellants, and they were affected thereby; reclassification of ammonium nitrate cast an obligation on the appellants to pay excise duty, that was leviable as a result; such an obligation did not arise merely by reason of an agreement between SAIL and the appellants, but also by virtue of the provisions

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

iii) the manner of acceptance or rejection of value declared by the importer or exporter, as the case may be, where the proper officer has reason to doubt the truth or accuracy of such value, and determination of value for the purposes of this section: [(iv) the additional obligations of the importer in respect of any class of imported

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

iii) the manner of acceptance or rejection of value declared by the importer or exporter, as the case may be, where the proper officer has reason to doubt the truth or accuracy of such value, and determination of value for the purposes of this section: [(iv) the additional obligations of the importer in respect of any class of imported

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), vs. M/s Country Club Inda Limited

iii). Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the Appellant had a PE in India is perverse and contrary to the facts and material on record? (iv). Whether, without prejudice, the Tribunal erred in attributing 50% of the alleged profits to the alleged PE of the Appellant in India and whether such approach and quantification was inconsistent with Article

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 13 which provides for Rule making power of the Central Government in respect of minerals. Section 13 subsection (1) WP(C). 11249/2010 & other contd cases. -:88:- and Section 13 Sub-section (2) in so far as relevant in the present case are as follows: “13. Power of Central Government to make Rules in respect

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.

26 53. Before proceeding further I would also like to note that the petitioner itself before the Arbitrator sought further directions incase specific performance was ordered by the Arbitrator. These, inter alia, included the direction to the respondents to approve one of the concept plans prepared by the architect and allocation of the specific sum as rent for houses

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

1) the Will was signed by the testator; (2) the testator at the time was in a sound and disposing state of mind; (3) 26 the testator understood the nature and effect of dispositions; and (4) that the testator had put his signature on the document of his own free. Ordinarily, when the evidence adduced in support of a Will

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

iii) medical relief, and (iv) the advancement of any other object of general public utility. An entity with a charitable object of the above nature was eligible for exemption from tax under section Section 11 or alternatively under section 10(23C) of the Act. However. it was seen that a number of entities who were engaged

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

iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the appointment order nos. ekU;rk@ 'kS0 O;0@1468 ¼11½ and ekU;rk@ 'kS0 O;0@1468 ¼10½ dated 30/11/2010 issued by respondent university to respondent nos. 4 & 5. (iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

iii) The Court must be mindful of the fact that the adjudication process must be free from any kind of bias. The true test of bias is not whether the judge is actually biased or not, but whether there is a real danger of bias from the view point of fair-minded and informed observer (N.K. Bajpai Case

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

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

iii) The Court must be mindful of the fact that the adjudication process must be free from any kind of bias. The true test of bias is not whether the judge is actually biased or not, but whether there is a real danger of bias from the view point of fair-minded and informed observer (N.K. Bajpai Case

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

iii) The Court must be mindful of the fact that the adjudication process must be free from any kind of bias. The true test of bias is not whether the judge is actually biased or not, but whether there is a real danger of bias from the view point of fair-minded and informed observer (N.K. Bajpai Case

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

iii) The Court must be mindful of the fact that the adjudication process must be free from any kind of bias. The true test of bias is not whether the judge is actually biased or not, but whether there is a real danger of bias from the view point of fair-minded and informed observer (N.K. Bajpai Case