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 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

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed

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

68. 1973 KLT 463 69. (1988) 69 STC 29 (Kerala DB) 70. 36 LJQB 81 71. (1954) 5 STC 348 (T-C) 72. (1955) 2 SCR 374 73. (1895) Q.B. 749 74. 15 Ves. 396, 406 75. 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 646 76. AIR 1960 SC 610 77. (1999) 6 SCC 275 78. (2015) 5 SCC 718 79. (2000) 1

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

II deals with the etablishment of the.Council. Sub-section (1) of Section 3 reads as follows: "3 (1) With effect from such date as the Central Government hlay, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint there shall be established a Council to be called the Natiohal Council for Teacher Education." 20. Section 12 deals with the functions

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

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

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

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

ii) the place of installation of equipment. Further, the CIT(A) also held that office of Nortel LO and Nortel India would also constitute a fixed PE of the Assessee in India as the Assessee and Nortel Canada were one and the same entity. 22. The CIT(A) held that Nortel India constituted a fixed place of business

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

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

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 INCOME TAX III, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

ii) of the Act, it had to necessarily be paid pursuant to a contractual obligation. The mere fact that the commission was paid „ex gratia‟ would not necessarily mean it is unreasonable. It was observed “even where the nature of the work as remain the same, commercial expediency may require payment of commission to an employee.” The payment was allowed

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

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

ii) of the Act, it had to necessarily be paid pursuant to a contractual obligation. The mere fact that the commission was paid „ex gratia‟ would not necessarily mean it is unreasonable. It was observed “even where the nature of the work as remain the same, commercial expediency may require payment of commission to an employee.” The payment was allowed

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

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.

1) of Section 14. The clause (b) of sub-section (3) deals with suits for execution of formal deed of partnership and the clause (c) deals with enforcement of a contract for the construction of any building or the execution of any other work on land. Thus, Clause (c) deals with pure and simple building contracts under which