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-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

The Commissioner of Income TAx-IV, vs. M/s. Mahaveer Enterprises (India) Limited

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

33 of the Act and revision by the State under Section 34 of the Act which will be discussed in some other appropriate case on merits. Page 38 of 76 C/LPA/94/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2021 RAVJIBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL SINCE DECD. THR'HEIRS V/s ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY U.L.C. Since on merits, we have found in the present case that

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed

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

33 contains other resinoids. 65. The word 'excisable goods', has been defined by Clause (d) of Section 2 to mean, 'goods' specified in the Schedule. That is why Section 3 levies duty on all excisable goods mentioned in the Schedule provided they are produced and manufactured. The tariff schedule, by placing the goods in specific and general

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Jyothi Wines,

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

68, proposing addition of unexplained credits; but eventually the additions were made under Section 69 as undisclosed investments. There was a further addition made of Rs.7,48,750/-, which was a cheque payment made by one of the assessee- firms to T.S.Asok, one of its partners, which was said to be refund of advance paid on a property

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.

33 land on which the building is to be constructed or other work is to be executed. If the rule of literal interpretation is adopted to interpret Section 14(3)(c)(iii), it would lead to a situation where a suit for specific performance can only be instituted at the behest of the owner against a developer, denying

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

The appeals are dismissed

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 132 27 159 83 26 Total

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

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

33. To appoint any Directors or Managers of any subsidiary company or of any other Company in which this Company is or may be Interested. 34. To establish, provide, maintain and conduct or otherwise subsidise, research, laboratories and experimental workshop for scientific and technical research and experiments and undertake and carry on with all scientific and technical research experiments

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri Byru Venkateswarlu

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68 permitting the assessing officer to treat unexplained cash credit as income are enabling provisions for making certain additions, where there is failure by the assessee to give an explanation or where the explanation is not to the satisfaction of the assessing officer. However, the addition made on this count would not automatically justify imposition of penalty under section

THE COMMISSIONER OF I.T.-I, HYDERABAD. vs. M/S. AKASH CABLE TV NETWORK PVT.LTD., HYDERABAD.

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

33. Learned counsel submits that there is a proposal to amend the Act, applicable w.e.f. assessment year 2013-2014 as per the Finance Bill which is pending for consideration before the Parliament. This proposed amendment is not retrospective. Lastly, he relies upon decisions of the Supreme Court in Anis Ahmad and Sons

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 INCOMETAX vs. M/S V.SATAYANARAYANA

The appeal is allowed

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

33 Section 20 of the Act can be drawn only after demand for and acceptance of illegal gratification is proved. It is also fairly well settled that initial presumption of innocence in the criminal jurisprudence gets doubled by acquittal recorded by the trial court. 27. The relevant paras 7, 8 and 9 of the judgment in B. Jayaraj

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 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

33,848/- on loan of Rs.9 Cr. taken from Citi Bank.” 65. The AO disallowed the interest paid to IndusInd Bank on the ground that the interest was required to be capitalized under the head of „capital work ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 29 of 36 and progress.‟ In fact

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

33,848/- on loan of Rs.9 Cr. taken from Citi Bank.” 65. The AO disallowed the interest paid to IndusInd Bank on the ground that the interest was required to be capitalized under the head of „capital work ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 29 of 36 and progress.‟ In fact

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

33,700/-. Facts of ITA No.512 of 2017 6. ITA No. 512 of 2017 has been filed by the Revenue which arises out of the order of the Tribunal dated 28.03.2017 (Annexure A-IV) wherein, it was held that it does not amount to filing of inaccurate particulars and the same were present before the Assessing Officer during the assessment