THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX vs. M/S V.SATAYANARAYANA

The appeal is allowed

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

1:15 pm. xi. PW-3 recalled that during the transaction as part of the entrapment process, both he and PW-8 overheard a conversation conducted in Bengali between the appellant and PW-2, witnessing the exchange of the bribe money. Following the conversation, the entrapment operation unfolded, leading to the apprehension of the appellant. PW- 3 also noted that

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

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

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

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

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

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

32 of 57 of the contract, but the same should not be construed keeping in view the taxing provisions. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 98. We, therefore, hold as under: (A) Re: Offshore supply (1) That only such part of the income, as is attributable to the operations carried out in India can be taxed in India. (2) Since

Commissioner of Income Tax- IT and TP vs. M/s. Louis Berger International Inc.,

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

68, on the date on which [a bill of entry for home consumption in respect of such goods is presented under that section]; (c) in the case of any other goods, on the date of payment of duty: [PROVIDED that if a bill of entry has been presented before the date of entry inwards of the vessel

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s. Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

68, on the date on which [a bill of entry for home consumption in respect of such goods is presented under that section]; (c) in the case of any other goods, on the date of payment of duty: [PROVIDED that if a bill of entry has been presented before the date of entry inwards of the vessel

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. (2) SCC 646 76. AIR 1960 SC 610 77. (1999) 6 SCC 275 78. (2015) 5 SCC 718 79. (2000) 1

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/s. Murala Venkateswara Rao AND others

Appeal is dismissed,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68,000/- and after furnishing all the documents, P.W1 was issued a notice to pay income tax for a sum of Rs.1,76,000/-; that on preferring appeal before the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam, the matter was remanded to the Income Tax Officer, Ward-ll, Vizianagaram with a direction to assess the value and at that relevant point

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

32 witnesses as per 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

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

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

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

32 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 33. Rule of Law is of the elemental principle of Constitution of India. The Rule of Law requires Rule within the ambit of law and every statutory authority must function themselves as required under the law. The Constitution requires that Rule of Law must be upheld over the rule

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

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

32 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 33. Rule of Law is of the elemental principle of Constitution of India. The Rule of Law requires Rule within the ambit of law and every statutory authority must function themselves as required under the law. The Constitution requires that Rule of Law must be upheld over the rule

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

32 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 33. Rule of Law is of the elemental principle of Constitution of India. The Rule of Law requires Rule within the ambit of law and every statutory authority must function themselves as required under the law. The Constitution requires that Rule of Law must be upheld over the rule

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

32 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 33. Rule of Law is of the elemental principle of Constitution of India. The Rule of Law requires Rule within the ambit of law and every statutory authority must function themselves as required under the law. The Constitution requires that Rule of Law must be upheld over the rule