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

34, the following section insert:— “34A. Person claiming under document for sale of property also to sign document.—Subject to the provisions of this Act, no document for sale of peoperty shall be registered under this Act, unless the person claiming under the document has also signed such document.”. [Vide Tamil Nadu Act 28 of 2000]. 35. Procedure

M/s. PLL-Suncon Joint Venture vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

68, From reading of the above decisions of the courts, it is clear that the scope of judicial review under Section 34

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

34,015/-. The assessing officer increased the GP Rate from the disclosed rate of 4.6% to 6% and thus, made an addition of Rs.30,19,867/- in the income of the assessee. 6. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed first appeal before the CIT(A), who determined the GP Rate to 5% and sustained the addition under Section 68

THE COMM. OF INCOME TAX RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/S B.KRISHNA MURTHY AND OTHERS

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

section 313 Cr.P.C. accused Subash Gupta had admitted that he had an inclination short of lust and infatuation towards Sujata Shah.” Crl.A.247/2000 & Crl.A.81/2003 Page 17 of 55 Other findings of the trial Court 33. The trial Court concluded that there was nothing to show that all the accused had met at Hotel Mohan at Ashok Vihar on 5th June

M/s. Kausalya Shelters Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 34 Petition. B. FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL ON ISSUE NO. 2 AND ISSUE NO. 7 VIZ. WHETHER THE SUB-LEASE DEED DATED NOVEMBER 06, 2018 WAS VALIDLY TERMINATED BY THE PETITIONER 57. Qua these issues, it was observed by the Tribunal that since the respondent had already validly terminated the sub-lease deed, which had taken effect

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. At the same time, plaintiffs also sought to deny relationship between defendant no.1 and defendants no.2 and 3 by specific pleadings

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Dr.Kodela Siva Prasada Rao

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

34,500/- including income from other sources of Rs.60,000/- earned by him during the previous year. He also admitted agricultural income of Rs.40,000/-. The return was processed under Section 143 (1) on 19-01- 2004. The assessing officer suspected that some income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and issued a notice under Section

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, vs. M/s. Jyothi Wines,

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

34,100/- as undisclosed investments under Section 69. Notice was initially issued under Section 68, proposing addition of unexplained

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 - VI, vs. Shri Mekala Bal Reddy

Section 34. 67. In the end, it is argued that burden on the prosecution to establish guilt of the accused never shifts. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex court in Shri Kishan and others vs State of U.P reported in 1972 SCC Crl 875 and in Emperor vs U.Damapal reported in AIR 1937 Rangoon

The Pr. Commissioner of Income vs. Shri. Vishnu Mohan Reddy Chintapally

Appeal is disposed of

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

34,68,09,650/-. 9. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. But was, thereafter

PR COMMR OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. K RAVINDER REDDY, HYDERABAD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

34 of 85 28.3. Section 2(e) of Foreign Exchange Management (Establishment in India of Branch of Office or Other place of business) Regulations, 2000 defines 'Liaison office' to mean a place of business to act as a channel of communication between the principal place of business or HO and entities in India, but which does not undertake

The Commissioner of IncomeTax-III vs. M/S Vishwas Investments Pvt.,Limited,

Sections 279/338/427/304A of the Indian Penal Code was started and after investigation charge sheet was submitted against the driver of the vehicle. That is why the claim petition was filed by the claimants with a prayer for compensation to the tune of Rs.60,00,000/-. Owner did not contest the claim petition but the New India Assurance Company Limited

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

34 / 79 CRA-322-08gr therein. He further deposed that “it is not true that my statement as regards to the rolling shutter and removal of partition wall is not correct.” 44. Plaintiffs examined PW 4 Prafull Powale, Structural Engineer. He had produced report dated 7.7.2003 at Exh.H. In paragraph 10 of the report, he mentioned about demolition

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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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 the proceedings under the ULC Act, 1976 were concluded properly in accordance

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