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

The appeal is allowed

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

36 to suggest that the appellant was incapable of indulging in intercourse. 25. In M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1963 SC 200 : (1963) 1 Cri LJ 235] this Court held, that if the circumstances proved in a case are consistent either with the innocence of the accused, or with his guilt, then the accused is entitled

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

1. OMP (COMM) 432/2017 has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) challenging the arbitral award dated 17.10.2017, by SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner. 2. Subsequent to the filing of the petition, Power Mech Projects Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the respondent), on 11.12.2017 filed

M/S. GAUTAMI POWER LIMITED vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

36. In this context, we may refer with profit to Krishan Kuinar. v. State of Rajasthan and others, AIR 1992 SC 1789 wherein their Lorciships noticed an apparent conflict between Sections 100(4) and 217 (2)(e) of the • . Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and expressed.thus: 11, it. is settled principle of interpretation that where t'iere appears

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

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

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

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

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

36 of 57 Requirements and Procedures). Contractor shall, however, retain case, custody, and control of such equipment and materials and exercise due care thereof until (a) provisional acceptance of the work, or (b) termination of this contract, whichever shall first occur. Such transfer of title shall in no way affect the owner‘s rights under any other provision of this

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

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

1) [The rate of duty [* * *] and tariff valuation, if any, applicable to any imported goods, shall be the rate and valuation in force,— (a) in the case of goods entered for home consumption under Section 46, on the date on which a bill of entry in respect of such goods is presented under that section

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

1) [The rate of duty [* * *] and tariff valuation, if any, applicable to any imported goods, shall be the rate and valuation in force,— (a) in the case of goods entered for home consumption under Section 46, on the date on which a bill of entry in respect of such goods is presented under that section

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

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

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. M/S GOLDEN STAR FACILITIES AND SERVICES PVT LTD., HYD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

36:- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 4TH JYAISHTA, 1944 WA NO. 1434 OF 2017 [AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.04.2017 IN WP(C) NO. 610/2017] APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN WP(C): 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED

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

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

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

1,87,718.00 could not be explained satisfactorily by the assessee. Accordingly, the same was added to the income of the assessee under Section 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

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