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

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

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [TDS] vs. M/s.KCIL-MEIL [JV]

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

28 YEARS, OT.REV 212/2015 -2- PUNNELIPPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOMBODINJAMAKKAL, THAZHEKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT *ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS R2 TO R4 AS PER VIDE ORDER DTD. 29/10/18 IN IA NO. 3/18 BY ADVS. SRI.P.R.AJITHKUMAR SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN SRI.K.SRIKUMAR SR. OTHER PRESENT: SPL. G.P TAXES MOHAMMED RAFIQ FOR THE PETITIONER THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.11.2021, THE COURT

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

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

28-12- 2006. The assessee filed a confirmation letter from the NRI, N.Mohan wherein he confirmed that he paid Rs.15.00 lakhs to the assessee who was his relative during the financial year 2002-03 apart from the official remittance in foreign currency to his account. The assessee in a letter dated 27-12-2006 informed the assessing officer that

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 good or sufficient reasons to interfere with finding of trial Court insofar as Ex.P.8 - gift deed. 33. At the same time, plaintiffs also sought to deny relationship between defendant no.1 and defendants no.2 and 3 by specific pleadings

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

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

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

28 of 50 ngrafted under Section 13 of the Act. If we understand the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants, the, provisions are absd1itely distinct an different and cannot be reconciled. The learned 'counsel for the .repondents would contend that there is basically no conflict and even if there is a conflict and discord, the principle

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed

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

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. Chapter 3 relates to fish and crustaceans

SHRI GYAN KUMAR AGARWAL (INDL) vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

28-O2-20OO passd in l.T.(SS)A.No. 139tHydt2OO5 for the Block Period 1997-98 to 2002-03 & upto 21-01-2003 on the file of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'B', Hyderabad, preferred against the Order dated 22-08- 2005 passed in Appeal No. 0420, 0422 & 0423lCC-1, Hyd/ClT(A)-llHYD/04-05 on the file. of the Commissioner

Commissioenr of Income Tax vs. Dr. T. Ravi Kumar

28,440/-. The same was subsequently revised under section 154 at a loss of Rs. 114,46,13,711/- and further recomputed at Rs. 116,30,34,284/- after appeal effect . In another words the assessed figure at all stages in the case of the appellant company for A. Y. 1995-96 has been a loss and relying

THE APR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. SHRI TUMMALA SRI RAM BABU

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

68,589/- with the Registry on 01.09.2018, in purported compliance of orders dated 24.07.2018 read with 21.08.2018. 7. On 10.09.2018, Court appointed M/s PN Chopra & Co. as a Valuer to ascertain the realizable value of the assets mentioned in the two affidavits filed by the petitioner. On 23.10.2018, the Valuer submitted its Report. 8. On 24.12.2018, the petitioner deposited

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

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Energy Solutions International India Pvt Ltd.,

Bench: J. UMA DEVI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

68,28,574/- allegedly paid to ‘Transport Creditors’. During the course of Scrutiny Assessment Proceedings, the Assessment Officer (hereinafter ‘AO’) had asked the Assessee to furnish details of Transport Creditors to whom the payment was made. The Assessee expressed his inability to produce any documents contending that his entire business office having been raided all books files, registers, etc have

The Commissioner of Income -Tax - III, vs. Shri Taher Ali

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

28 / 79 CRA-322-08gr annexation and the surrounding circumstances being all appropriate matters for consideration of the above two basic and usually determinant elements. Mitter, J. (as His Lordship then was) in a concurring judgment quoted the decision in Atul Chandra Lahiry V Sonatan Daw, AIR 1962 Calcutta 78 and observed in paragraph 101 that it is impossible

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, vs. Prasad Film Laboratories Limited,

Section  128 of Motor Vehicles Act, to substantiate this contention the  Insurer of the offending vehicle did not examine any eye witness  or even the driver of offending vehicle.  Therefore, in absence of  the   evidence   to   prove   contributory   negligence   of   deceased  Ramesh Barhate, by no stretch of imagination it can be held that  even   deceased   Ramesh   contributed   the   occurrence