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 - 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

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

1 Furnishing any wrong infoimation or concealment of facts in the application, which may have bearing on the decision making process or the decision pertaining to grant of recognition, shall result in withdrawal of recognition Of the institution besides other legal action against its management; order of withdrawal of recognition shall be passed after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing through

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

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed

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

III contains Chapter 15, Section IV is from Chapters 16 to 24, Section V is from Chapters 25 to 27 and Section VI is from Chapters 28 to 38. 62. Chapter I in Section I, which relates to live animals, covers all live animals except (a) fish and crustaceans, mollusks and other aquatic invertebrates, (b) cultures

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

iii). Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the Appellant had a PE in India is perverse and contrary to the facts and material on record? (iv). Whether, without prejudice, the Tribunal erred in attributing 50% of the alleged profits to the alleged PE of the Appellant in India and whether such approach and quantification was inconsistent with Article

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

iii) the manner of acceptance or rejection of value declared by the importer or exporter, as the case may be, where the proper officer has reason to doubt the truth or accuracy of such value, and determination of value for the purposes of this section: [(iv) the additional obligations of the importer in respect of any class of imported

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

iii) the manner of acceptance or rejection of value declared by the importer or exporter, as the case may be, where the proper officer has reason to doubt the truth or accuracy of such value, and determination of value for the purposes of this section: [(iv) the additional obligations of the importer in respect of any class of imported

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

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

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

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

iii) medical relief, and (iv) the advancement of any other object of general public utility. An entity with a charitable object of the above nature was eligible for exemption from tax under section Section 11 or alternatively under section 10(23C) of the Act. However. it was seen that a number of entities who were engaged

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

EVEREST ORGANICS LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF I.T., HYDERABAD

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

36 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters not agile of the matter, but when the communications from higher up were received from Delhi, the AO decided for reassessment. 39. The true test is whether in the given facts and circumstances a person i.e. the AO, who is an employee of the Revenue, too had the capacity to disobey such

C. SANYASI RAJU vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIZAG.

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

36 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters not agile of the matter, but when the communications from higher up were received from Delhi, the AO decided for reassessment. 39. The true test is whether in the given facts and circumstances a person i.e. the AO, who is an employee of the Revenue, too had the capacity to disobey such

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.Samrakshna Electricals Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

36 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters not agile of the matter, but when the communications from higher up were received from Delhi, the AO decided for reassessment. 39. The true test is whether in the given facts and circumstances a person i.e. the AO, who is an employee of the Revenue, too had the capacity to disobey such