THE APR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. SHRI TUMMALA SRI RAM BABU

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

68,589/- with the Registry on 01.09.2018, in purported compliance of orders dated 24.07.2018 read with 21.08.2018. 7. On 10.09.2018, Court appointed M/s PN Chopra & Co. as a Valuer to ascertain the realizable value of the assets mentioned in the two affidavits filed by the petitioner. On 23.10.2018, the Valuer submitted its Report. 8. On 24.12.2018, the petitioner deposited

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

68, the Calcutta High Court, while constructing the expression " expenditure incurred " in s. 44A of the Act, observed: "depreciation claimed shall include the expenditure incurred." There are only two recognised methods of accounting : (1) cash basis, and (ii) mercantile basis. Under the cash basis only cash transactions are recorded. It is only cash receipts and cash (U payments which find

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [TDS] vs. M/s.KCIL-MEIL [JV]

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68, section 69 and section 70 passed by an authority empowered to do so under this Act not being an authority above the rank of an Assistant Commissioner may, within a period of thirty days from the date on which the order was served on him, appeal against such order, xxx xxx xxx (5) In disposing

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. 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

35. Thus, the Hon’ble Apex Court came to a finding that it was not proper aspect for the District Registrar or the Sub-Registrar to entertain the proceedings subsequent to closure and thus asked them to keep quite and leave the matter for judicial side for adjudication and at that level, the proceedings 39 stopped. It was thereafter

M/s. Canara Securities Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

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

68 of 300 Section 2(55) of the said Act that is a person whose name is entered in the Register of Members or the beneficial owner in the records of the depository. It is submitted that in the instant case even by the respondent’s own showing since the estate does not hold or even control directly

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

35. A provision similar to Section 3(2), namely Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 was considered by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court (Ramachandra Rao and Jagannadha Rao, JJ.) in Sri Balaji Rice Company v. Commercial Tax Officer and it was held at page 304 that any fixation

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

35. To take part in the management, supervision and control of the business or operation of any company or undertaking having similar objects and for that purpose to appoint any directors or other experts. 36. To amalgamate, enter into partnership or into any arrangement, union of interest, cooperation, reciprocal concession or otherwise with any person, firm or company carrying

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

35 of 137 (b) ―foreign currency‖ and ―Indian currency‖ have the meanings respectively assigned to them in clause (m) and clause (q) of Section 2 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (42 of 1999).]‖ 20. As is evident from a reading of Section 14, the value of imported and exported goods is recognized to be the transaction

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

35 of 137 (b) ―foreign currency‖ and ―Indian currency‖ have the meanings respectively assigned to them in clause (m) and clause (q) of Section 2 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (42 of 1999).]‖ 20. As is evident from a reading of Section 14, the value of imported and exported goods is recognized to be the transaction

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.

35 19. It must be noted here that though under the aforesaid sections, a contract may be specifically enforceable, the relief of specific performance being a discretionary and equable relief, the Court retains discretionary power to refuse a decree for specific performance. The said discretionary power is found in Section 20 of the Act of 1963. On plain

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

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

35 Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 413 of 2011 Appellant :- Suresh Kumar Sheetlani Respondent :- Income Tax Officer-1 (3) Counsel for Appellant :- Swapnil Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Income Tax,Manish Goyal Hon'ble Bharati Sapru,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J. [Per: Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.) 1. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income

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

35 Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 259 of 2013 Appellant :- Commissioner Of Income Tax Respondent :- M/S Green Land Motors Counsel for Appellant :- S.S.C. I.T.,Shubham Agrawal Counsel for Respondent :- Ashish Bansal,S.K. Garg,Satish Madhyan Hon'ble Bharati Sapru,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J. 1. Vide order dated 20th September, 2013 the present appeal was admitted

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

35 to 37 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 24th April, 2012. + ITA 252/2012 + ITA 253/2012 + ITA 258/2012 AZEEM INVESTMENT PVT LTD ..... Appellant Through Mr. R. Santhanam and Mr. A P Sinha, Advs. versus CIT ..... Respondent Through Mr. Deepak Chopra, sr. standing counsel with Mr. Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE

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

The Commissioner of Income TAx-IV vs. Sajjan Kumar Mann

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

35 days. Thereafter, several extensions were granted by the AO; for 45 days (by direction dated 24th March 2006), further 30 days (on 10th May 2006), for further 10 days (on 9th June 2006) and further 7 days (by direction dated 28th June 2006). As a result of these extensions, the special audit report was required to be furnished

The Commissioner of Income Tax - II vs. M/s. Kumar Raja Associates

In the result, all the Tax Revision

Bench: Floor, Opp.Gurudware Bus Stop, Th Stat, 0/O.Meghana Towers, 4 Visakhapatnam. ... Petitioner & M/S.Pulp-N-Pack [P] Limited, Tadimalla ... Respondent : Sri T.C.D.Sekhar, Gp For Commercial Tax Counsel For The Respondent : Sri S Suribabu, Representing On Behalf Of Sri S R R Viswanath Counsel For The Petitioner

35 RNT, J & HN, J TREVC. No. 83 of 2008 & batch there is nothing unjust in a taxpayer escaping if the letter of the law fails to catch him on account of the legislature's failure to express itself clearly. 55. Paragraphs-55 to 57 in Checkmate Services Private Limited (supra) are reproduced as under: “55, One of the rules