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

Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Arguments on behalf of the prosecution (CBI) 65. On behalf of CBI Sri Jitendra Mishra, Advocate alongwith Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav have placed heavy reliance on the previous judgment of this Court in the case of 'XYZ' as well as the judgment of Supreme Court in said case. It is contended that findings

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

Section 68 of Evidence Act would not be attracted to question validity of a gift deed. Hence, there are no 27

M/s. Canara Securities Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO,T.AMARNATH GOUD

27) of the Companies Act 2013 and Section 2(1)(e) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations. It is further submitted that as per Section 152(2) of the Companies Act, 2013, directors are appointed by the company in the General Meeting of its shareholders. As per Section

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

The appeals are allowed

68(2) of VDIS, 1997 had been issued to the Assessee is recorded in the order dt. 10.03.2000 passed by the CIT(Appeals) and also in the subsequent order passed by ITAT on 17.08.2004.Therefore, the issuance of the said certificate to the Assessee cannot be doubted. 9 25) If the said certificate had been issued and has not been cancelled

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

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 68 of the Act by order dated 26-09-2008. 8. Aggrieved, the assessee filed I.T.A.No.677/Vizag/2008 to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench, Visakhapatnam. After considering the donor’s confirmation letter annexed to the assessee’s letter dated 27

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

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- 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

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

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

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

27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA). The pointing out was also relevant as conduct under Section 8 IEA. (5) Recovery of blood stained threads and fibres matching with the bed sheets which were used to wrap SS and DG from the BMW car of A-1. 39. The trial Court held that the above circumstances formed

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

Sections reads thus:- “26. Purpose for which the market development fund may be expended.The marketing development fund shall be utilised out of following purposes: (i) better marketing of agricultural produce ; (ii) marketing of agricultural produce on co-operative lines ; (iii) collection and dissemination of market rates and news ; (iv) grading and standardisation of agricultural produce; (v) general improvements

Paro Food Products, vs. Commissioner of Income Tax -VI

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

27(1)(c) under the facts and circumstances of the case? (iii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the appellant had not discharged the onus placed on him in view of Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act more so when the appellant had demonstrated that the amounts have been refunded back

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

27 vxLr 2009 }kjk iznRr 'kfDr dk iz;ksx djrs gq, fd;s x;s gSa**A (The eligibility criterion of present advertisement is determined as per U.G.C. Regulation 2009 No. 1/2000 (PS-PT-File-III) dated 27/08/2009.) (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus declared the ultra vires to first line of clause

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed

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

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 9508. Chapter 2 relates to meat and edible meat offal

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

27. Section 16 requires the affiliating body to grant affiliation after recognition or permission by the Council. Section 17 deals with the contravention of the provisions of the Act and consequences thereof; For the sake of completeness, sub-sections (1) to (3), being relevant, are reproduced below: Provided further that the order withdrawing or refusing recognition passed

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Natco Exports Ltd.

In the result, the judgment and decree passed by the

Section 27 of the Bihar and Orissa Patna High Court FA No.218 of 2003 dt.16-01-2018 23/37 General Clauses Act such presumption arose with regard to registered letters. Reliance can be placed upon the ruling reported in 1918 Privy Council Page 102 in the matter of Harihar Banergee Vs. Ramashray Rao. The same view has been reported in the case

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