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

Appeal is partly allowed

68 of Evidence Act and on the ground that it was exclusive property of Smt.Rathnamma in view of Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act. Reliance was placed on decision in Maribasappa’s and Gangamma’s case. But in the said decision, though Hon’ble Supreme Court held that intestate property of Hindu women would not available for partition

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

32. Power to make regulations. (1) The Council may; by, notification in the Official. Gazette, . make, regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, generally to 'carry out the provisions of this Act. • . . .. Sub-section (2)(n) of the said Section provides as.. follows: "(r) additiofial ftinctions to be performecL

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

32, the assessee is entitled is the case pressed before us by the senior counsel appearing for the assessee. We have no doubt in our mind that business income of charitable trust also has to be computed in the same manner as provided under section 29 of the Income-tax Act. However, the issue that requires consideration is when

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

32. To subscribe or contribute or otherwise to assist or to guarantee money to charitable, benevolent, scientific, Page 47 of 96 C/TAXAP/627/2015 JUDGMENT national, public, or any other useful institutions in their objects or purposes or for any exhibitions; 33. To appoint any Directors or Managers of any subsidiary company or of any other Company in which this Company

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

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. Canara Securities Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

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

68 ; f. Ad interim order in terms of prayers above ; (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 28 of 300 g. Such further and/or other order or orders be passed and/or direction or directions be made as to this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper. GA/4/2021 (APO/92/2020) Prayer a. Injunction

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Jayalakshmi Chits

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68,478/­.  However,   it   was   seen   that   at   page   88   the  assessee  has  enclosed  computation  of total  income of GAFL according to which income has  been computed at NIL by chiming unabsorbed  business   loss   brought   forward   from   Asst.  Year 1991­92 at Rs. 16,38,462/­ and in the  note   total   business   loss   to   be   carried  forward to asst. year 1993­94

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S Gulf Oil Corporation Pvt. Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68,478/­.  However,   it   was   seen   that   at   page   88   the  assessee  has  enclosed  computation  of total  income of GAFL according to which income has  been computed at NIL by chiming unabsorbed  business   loss   brought   forward   from   Asst.  Year 1991­92 at Rs. 16,38,462/­ and in the  note   total   business   loss   to   be   carried  forward to asst. year 1993­94

The Commissioner of Income Tax - VI vs. M/s. Manikanta Iron AND Hardware

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68,478/­.  However,   it   was   seen   that   at   page   88   the  assessee  has  enclosed  computation  of total  income of GAFL according to which income has  been computed at NIL by chiming unabsorbed  business   loss   brought   forward   from   Asst.  Year 1991­92 at Rs. 16,38,462/­ and in the  note   total   business   loss   to   be   carried  forward to asst. year 1993­94

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

The appeals are dismissed

32. Thus when one considers the entire scheme as a whole it is more than abundan tly clear that there is hardly any scope for misuse of the scheme. Furthermore, the period of the scheme is a self limiting one and only those manufacturers who have complied with the requirements of the Original Notification are entitled t o the benefit

Commissioner of Income Tax-i, vs. Agricultural Market Committee

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar

32,000.00 8 Gift received from father `2,68,000 9 Loan received from brother `3,25,000 10 Proceeds of NSC `86,500 11 Agriculture income `1,22,000 12 Customary gifts `2,04,000 Total Income ` 22,33,819.00 22,33,819.00 22,33,819.00 22,33,819.00 7. Sri. Nagendra Naik, learned counsel for the accused argued

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

32 / 79 CRA-322-08gr that the defendants have demolished rear side wall. There was Otla to the rear side of the suit premises. The defendants covered it by constructing walls affixed a rolling shutter by removing the wall. Due to the work carried out by the defendants, structure of the suit building is weakened. Life of the building

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S. SIVARAMA REDDY

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

68)/SFRC/14- 15/9728 dated 19.02.2016” (viii) It was in this scenario that the Association challenged the impugned Notification, mainly contending that the SFRC recommendations once having been accepted, and notified, exercise of power rescinding the same was arbitrary and illegal, and therefore the rescinding order had necessarily to be set aside. LPA 733/2017 and connected matter Page

The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Vaishnavi Educational Society

In the result, this Cross Objection is allowed and the suit is

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

32 of his deposition that he had not, at any time, obtained any Identity Card from the Owners and Sri.Rafi, as DW2, conceded that he had not even seen the same. This, therefore, certainly probabilises the RFA 554/15 & CON. CASES 53 allegation of the Owners, as available from the testimony of PW1, that the then SRO was also acting illegally

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

32 of 66 Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Satchidananda Misra v. State of Orissa 2004 8 SCC 599, it was submitted that the very purpose of a Validating Act is to remove the cause of ineffectiveness or invalidity. However, there is no specific provision in the Customs (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2011 which validates the past

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Margadarshi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd.,

The appeal is dismissed

32,186/-, which was processed and proceedings under Section 143 (2) of Act 1961 were conducted. The assessment was completed under Section 143 (3) for the assessment year 2007-2008 on 07.09.2009 (A-2). On 29.11.2010, the proceedings GAURAV ARORA 2023.04.03 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/document P&H HC, Chandigarh