The Commissioner of Income Tax - Central vs. M/s. Himagiri Biotech Pvt. Ltd.,

section 36(1)(iii) even otherwise, because the proportionate amount of interest is needed to be added back, as the assessee during the course of the assessment proceedings has itself submitted that it has advanced the loans to its associate company for the purpose of acquiring a show room. This clearly meant “extension of existing business or profession

The Commissioner of Income Tax I vs. M/s. Bhagiradha Chemicals AND Industries Ltd.,

The appeal is disposed of

68,953/- under normal provisions and book- profit of Rs.9,85,25,142/-. Tax was payable on book profits as per Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short). The aforementioned return was taken up for scrutiny and additions of Rs.1,00,500/- and Rs.1,17,141/- on substantive basis, and Rs.10 lacs on protective basis

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

36) At any rate none of them can be made jointly liable for any offences committed by any of them especially when the registration obtained by them for running their business under the Act stands in the name of each of them (Para 37) The Intelligence OT.REV 212/2015 -10- Form 8 B bills (bills to be issued to end consumers

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

Appeal is partly allowed

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. But, defendants

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

Sections 36 (1) (iii) of the Act are met, deduction of interest cannot be denied merely because the Assessee was a cash rich company having enough resources of its own. 68

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

Sections 36 (1) (iii) of the Act are met, deduction of interest cannot be denied merely because the Assessee was a cash rich company having enough resources of its own. 68

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed

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

Section 5(1) of the Tariff Act, must be given due weight and cannot be readily ignored, unless a case of the 36 excisable good, referred to in a particular chapter of the First Schedule to the Tariff Act, not amounting to “manufacture” or “production” is made out. 68

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

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

36, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 42 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882 were referred to. Section 5 of the Society Registration Act, 1860 and Section 16 of the State Act were also referred to. It is submitted that PDB during her lifetime did not have any right of nomination of any Member of the managing committees

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMEE TAX-III vs. M/S.V.B.C.FERRO ALLOYS LTD

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

36, IV. Finance Act 1999 introduced the follouing fufther Explanation: " Explanation 2.- For the remoual of doubts, it is herebg declared that ang income bg uag of diuidends, interest or long-term capital gains of an infrastntcture capital fund or an infrastructure capital compang from inuestments made before the 7"t daA of June, 1998 bg utay of shares

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-II vs. Energy Solutions International India Pvt Ltd.,

Bench: J. UMA DEVI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee) laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession…”. The text of this sub section shows its building blocks

THE COMMI.OF INCOME TAX,HYD. vs. VAIBHAV

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

68 of the Act as "Income from other sources". Thus, by the assessment order dated 30.03.2000 passed under Section 1a3(3) of the Act, the aforesaid addidons were made to the total income of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the above order of the assessment, assessee preferred first appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V (C-entral

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. K.V.Srinivasa Rao

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) for grant of compensation on account of the death of Sh. Vikram Singh as the result of motor vehicle accident. 3. It was alleged that Sh. Vikram Singh had died in a motor vehicle accident involving vehicle No. HP-10A- 5266 (Ford Figo Car). As per claimants

Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. M/S Sri Ramanjaneya Poultry Farm Pvt., Ltd.,

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

36,68,514.00 2. Rs.1,44,00,000 18.12.99 18.12.99 – 31.5.01 @ 1% p.m. for 18 months 1.6.01 – 31.5.02 @ 0.75% p.m. for 12 months 1.6.02 – 31.8.04 @ 2/3% p.m. for 27 months Rs.25,92,000.00 Rs.12,96,000.00 Rs.25,66,080.00 3. Rs. 37,08,667 29.01.2000 29.1.2000 – 31.5.01 @ 1% p.m. for 5 months 1.6.01 – 31.5.02 @ 0.75% p.m. for 12 months

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

36. Moreover, Section 20 NI Act supports the case of the Respondents. In judgment dated 13.03.2008 passed by this Court in CRL.M.C. 5211/2006 Signed By:RITA SHARMA Signing Date:02.07.2025 15:03:57 Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 150/2012 & CRL.REV.P. 408/2011 Page 12 of 22 titled as Ravi Chopra vs. State, it was observed that it is possible

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

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 on or engaged in or about to carry on any activities which may seem capable of being carried on or conducted so as, directly or indirectly to benefit the Company. 37. To search

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

36 of 66 obstante clause only in a limited sphere. It makes sub-section (11) apply notwithstanding anything contained in any " judgment, decree or order of the Court". It does not make it apply notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in the same statute or in any other law for the time being in force. 45. There could be different kinds