Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed

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

68. 1973 KLT 463 69. (1988) 69 STC 29 (Kerala DB) 70. 36 LJQB 81 71. (1954) 5 STC 348 (T-C) 72. (1955) 2 SCR 374 73. (1895) Q.B. 749 74. 15 Ves. 396, 406 75. 1995 Supp

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.

68. As noted hereinabove, in terms of the agreement the plaintiff is to provide “a suitable alternate accommodation” to the respondent no. 2 and 3 in the preferred localities. It is already noticed hereinabove that there was a major dispute between the parties with respect to the availability of such suitable alternate accommodation. In any case, what such suitable alternate

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Atyam Suryanarayana

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 5Th February 2024. Appearance: Mr. Om Narayan Rai, Advocate Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate …For The Appellant. 1. Heard Sri Om Narayan Rai, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Appellant. None Appears For The Respondent Assessee. 2. Affidavit Of Service Filed Today By Learned Counsel For The Appellant, In Compliance Of The Orders Dated 17.02.2023 & 15.01.2024, Is Taken On Record. Service Of Notice Upon The Respondent Assessee Is Found To Be Sufficient. 3. This Appeal Was Admitted By Order Of This Court Dated 03.09.2010, On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law:- “I) Whether The Learned Tribunal Was Justified On The Facts & Circumstances Of This Case To Follow The Ratio Decided By The

3) of the Act, 1961 determining the income of Rs.3,33,18,027/- being brokerage/commission @2% on the aforesaid cash deposits of Rs.166.59 crores. He also added the aforesaid amount of Rs.166.59 crores in the income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit under Section 68

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S. SIVARAMA REDDY

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

3) and (13) of section 6 of the said Act, the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi had notified the proposed fees for the academic year 2013- 2016 given by the State Fee Regulatory Committee for the academic year 2014- 2017 and for the year 2014-2018 for four years course and 2014-2019 for five years course

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Sri Ch.Govardhan Naidu

The appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

3) of the Act, re- computing the income of the appellant/assessee at Rs.34,02,650/- after making addition of Rs.24,78,800/- under Section 68

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

Section 68 of the Evidence Act. Thus the plaintiffs have failed to prove that Munipapaiah executed a Will dated 13.06.1956. In view of the above discussion, I answer point No.1 in negative. 13. Point No.2: Plaintiffs examined their power of attorney holder as PW-1. PW-1 has no personal knowledge about the case and he has clearly admitted

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Sri B.Ramanarayanba Rao

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 12Th December, 2023 Appearance: Ms. Anupa Banerjee, Adv. …For The Appellant. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. ...For The Respondent. 1. Supplementary Paper Book Filed Today By The Assessee Is Taken On Record. 2. Heard Ms. Anupa Banerjee, Learned Counsel For The Appellant/Assessee & Mr. Amit Sharma, Learned Standing Counsel For The Respondent/Income Tax Department. Facts: 3. Briefly Stated Facts Of The Present Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In Trading (Export & Domestic) Of

3. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the assessee is engaged in trading (export and domestic) of 2 various commodities. During the assessment year in question i.e., A.Y. 2005-06, the appellant/assessee received gift of jewellery valued at Rs.34,68,900/- which was introduced as capital in the business. Out of the aforesaid jewellery, the assessee sold

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

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

3) r.w.s. 147. Copy of the order along with D.N. & Ch. Etc. have been handed over to Shri D.C. Agrawal for affecting the service upon the assessee. 61. The records of the proceedings clearly shows that the AO was taking instructions on each and every hearing and dictates was clearly given to him. 62. That, even more interesting account

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

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

3) r.w.s. 147. Copy of the order along with D.N. & Ch. Etc. have been handed over to Shri D.C. Agrawal for affecting the service upon the assessee. 61. The records of the proceedings clearly shows that the AO was taking instructions on each and every hearing and dictates was clearly given to him. 62. That, even more interesting account

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

3) r.w.s. 147. Copy of the order along with D.N. & Ch. Etc. have been handed over to Shri D.C. Agrawal for affecting the service upon the assessee. 61. The records of the proceedings clearly shows that the AO was taking instructions on each and every hearing and dictates was clearly given to him. 62. That, even more interesting account

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

3) r.w.s. 147. Copy of the order along with D.N. & Ch. Etc. have been handed over to Shri D.C. Agrawal for affecting the service upon the assessee. 61. The records of the proceedings clearly shows that the AO was taking instructions on each and every hearing and dictates was clearly given to him. 62. That, even more interesting account

A.P.State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited vs. The Income tax Officer

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

3) Whether registration of a Will or codicil dispenses with the need of proving the execution and attestation of Will in the manner required by Section 68

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Hyderabad House Pvt Ltd.,

68,520/-* 26.04.2014 L. 02.10.2011 11 years 3,75,000/- 31.05.2014 M. 02.05.2012 14 years 3,75,000/- 29.09.2014 N. 04.02.2013 4 years 3,75,000/- 29.07.2013 * excluding medical expenses also awarded. 27. The above table graphically demonstrates not only divergence of opinion but also inconsistencies in approach. The incongruity is vivid. A case of death of three months

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

Sections 73, 74 and 75 49 of the Indian Registration Act, indicate the formalities. 49. When the execution is denied by the seller after completing formalities of execution, the Sub- Registrar would get authority to admit the execution. The purchaser has a right to present the document for compulsory registration. In this case, it was not the case

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.Visakha Industries Ltd

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 68 will be attracted only when the assessee offers no explanation or the explanation so offered is not satisfactory to the Assessing Officer. It was found that in the present case assessee had established the identity of the creditor, the source for the credit and the genuineness of the transaction and had thereby discharged the initial burden

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

Section 1. Assignment and Assumption. Assignor hereby assigns to the Assignee all the rights, entitlements, covenants and obligations of the Assignor under the Equipment Contract to sell, supply and deliver the Equipment to the Purchaser under the Equipment Contract and the Assignee hereby assumes, and agrees with all of the parties hereto, to perform, observe and be bound

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

The appeals are dismissed

3. Aluminium Rods/Wires 50 18 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