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 IV vs. M/s Lanco Kondapalli Power (P) Ltd

v The State of Maharashtra & Ors & Connected Writ Petitions 1-2-oswp-1494-2023-J+.docx a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its corporate office at "BKT House", C/15, Trade World, Kamala Mills Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. …Petitioner ~ versus ~ 1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Department of Registration and Stamps, Ministry

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

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 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

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

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

68,384/-; as on 31.03.2008, it was `17,10,43,019/- and as on 31.03.2009 it was `15,28,48,354/-. Sundry debtors as on 31.03.2006 was `22,82,38,320/-; as on 31.03.2007 it was `28,58,66,349/-; as on 31.3.2008 it was `22,53,78,479/-; as on 31.03.2009 stood at `11,61,95,359/-. Thus, there

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

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 of micro-organisms and other products, and (c) animals of Heading 9508. Chapter 2 relates

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

v. Dir. Of Income Tax: (2007) 288 ITR 408 (SC), the Supreme Court considered a case where Petronet LNG Limited and five members of a consortium had entered into an agreement for setting up a Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) receiving, storage and de-gasification facility at Dahej in the State of Gujarat. The contract was a turnkey project

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, 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

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

M/s.GVK Petro Chemicals Private Limited,(Novo Resins AND vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,

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

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