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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68, section 69 and section 70 passed by an authority empowered to do so under this Act not being an authority above the rank of an Assistant Commissioner may, within a period of thirty days from the date on which the order was served on him, appeal against such order, xxx xxx xxx (5) In disposing

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

Appeal is partly allowed

29. The reason assigned is that plaintiffs did not challenge validity of gift deed and admitted its due execution. Therefore compliance with Section 68

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

29-12-2006 determined that the amount of Rs.22,76,750/- is liable to be taxed as income of the assessee under Section 68

The Commissioner of Income Tax - IV vs. M/s. Mekins Agro Product (P) Ltd.

29 of the Income-tax Act. However, the issue that requires consideration is when the expenditure incurred for acquisition of depreciable assets itself is treated as application of income for charitable purposes under section ll(l)(a) of the Act, should not the cost of such assets to be treated as nil for the assessee and in that situation

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

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

68 of Schedule 1, Table F gives them such power. The share holders can pass resolutions by majority as Section 114 of the Companies Act gives such power. In terms of Sections 29

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

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

29 of 50 The principle stated in Crawford's Statutory Cohsfruchonat p. 260is as follows: 'Hence, the Court should., when it seeks the legislative intent, construe all of the constituent parts of the statute together, and seek to ascertain the legislative intention from the waole Act, considering every provision thereof in the light of the geneal purpose and object

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.

29 performance of its material terms or involves performance of a continuous duty which the Court cannot supervise, such Contracts cannot be specifically enforced/unamended. 59. Section 14(3)(c), however, carves out an exception incase of a Contract for construction of any building, subject to the fulfillment of the conditions mentioned therein. The same is reproduced hereinbelow:- “14. Contracts

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

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

29 of 66 There is some confusion to when Explanation 2 was introduced in the statute book and as to whether Explanation 2 has at all been passed by Parliament or not. The learned counsel for the Respondents wishes to take instructions in this regard. Renotify on 4th February 2013.” 33. On the next date of hearing, i.e., 4th February

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 III, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

29 of 36 and progress.‟ In fact in AYs 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95, the Assessee itself had capitalised interest in the capital work and progress. The cash credit limit available to the Assessee was used by it to give a loan to its sister concerns for purchasing land in Gurgaon. 66. As regards the payment of interest

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

29 of 36 and progress.‟ In fact in AYs 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95, the Assessee itself had capitalised interest in the capital work and progress. The cash credit limit available to the Assessee was used by it to give a loan to its sister concerns for purchasing land in Gurgaon. 66. As regards the payment of interest

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

29. The Legal Notices under Section 138 NI Act dated 06.02.2005 and 30.03.2005 respectively, were issued to P. C. Minda and thereafter, the Complaints under Section 138 NI Act were filed against the Complainant Signed By:RITA SHARMA Signing Date:02.07.2025 15:03:57 Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 150/2012 & CRL.REV.P. 408/2011 Page 10 of 22 Company

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

Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused has denied his implication in the case/offence and has claimed that he was tortured and that his nails were extracted, his genitals were burnt and petrol was put in his anus. He offered to get himself medically examined to prove his allegations. The accused SK also claimed that he was extended other tortures

The Commissioner of Income Tax - II vs. M/s. Kumar Raja Associates

In the result, all the Tax Revision

Bench: Floor, Opp.Gurudware Bus Stop, Th Stat, 0/O.Meghana Towers, 4 Visakhapatnam. ... Petitioner & M/S.Pulp-N-Pack [P] Limited, Tadimalla ... Respondent : Sri T.C.D.Sekhar, Gp For Commercial Tax Counsel For The Respondent : Sri S Suribabu, Representing On Behalf Of Sri S R R Viswanath Counsel For The Petitioner

Section 2 (1) (e) of the A.P.General Sales Tax Act 1957, which defined the word 'dealer' was for consideration. There was inbuilt expression "deeming provision" in the said 27 (2007) 9 see 55 AIR 1967 Se389 (1988) 2 see 299 28 29 42 RNT, J & HN, J TREVC. No. 83 of 2008 & batch Explanation. So, the Explanation IV also