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

2 of 21 present petition under Section 9(ii)(b) of the Act being O.M.P. (I) (COMM) 523/2017 seeking to secure the entire amount awarded to it under the Award. On 14.12.2017, the Court issued notice in this petition and directed the petitioner to file an affidavit detailing its assets (moveable/immovable), bank accounts and the amounts lying

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S Gulf Oil Corporation Pvt. Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2,01,250 19.2.92 40.25 9,80,000 16.1.92 Rs.4,43,750/­ c) 30,000 12,22,500 19.2.92 40.75 28 L & T 19,45,000 18.2.92 a) 10,000 194.50 21,30,000 b) 5,000 9,35,000 19.2.92 187.00 21.1.92 142.00 Rs.7,50,000/­ Total LossRs.16,88,250/­ 8.2. The   Assessing   Officer   after   verification  found that

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Jayalakshmi Chits

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2,01,250 19.2.92 40.25 9,80,000 16.1.92 Rs.4,43,750/­ c) 30,000 12,22,500 19.2.92 40.75 28 L & T 19,45,000 18.2.92 a) 10,000 194.50 21,30,000 b) 5,000 9,35,000 19.2.92 187.00 21.1.92 142.00 Rs.7,50,000/­ Total LossRs.16,88,250/­ 8.2. The   Assessing   Officer   after   verification  found that

The Commissioner of Income Tax - VI vs. M/s. Manikanta Iron AND Hardware

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2,01,250 19.2.92 40.25 9,80,000 16.1.92 Rs.4,43,750/­ c) 30,000 12,22,500 19.2.92 40.75 28 L & T 19,45,000 18.2.92 a) 10,000 194.50 21,30,000 b) 5,000 9,35,000 19.2.92 187.00 21.1.92 142.00 Rs.7,50,000/­ Total LossRs.16,88,250/­ 8.2. The   Assessing   Officer   after   verification  found that

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

2 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (42 of 1999).]‖ 20. As is evident from a reading of Section 14, the value of imported and exported goods is recognized to be the transaction value and which expression is explained to mean the price actually paid or payable for those goods when sold for export to India

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

2 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (42 of 1999).]‖ 20. As is evident from a reading of Section 14, the value of imported and exported goods is recognized to be the transaction value and which expression is explained to mean the price actually paid or payable for those goods when sold for export to India

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, 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

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

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

68 of 300 Section 2(55) of the said Act that is a person whose name is entered in the Register of Members or the beneficial owner in the records of the depository. It is submitted that in the instant case even by the respondent’s own showing since the estate does not hold or even control directly

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

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax - I vs. M/s. BBL Foods (Earlier Amber Biscuits P Ltd.)

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 3(2) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. 39. It is quite explicit from the available facts and evidence that, in order to arrange separate Bank loans for Mat.Appeal No.242 of 2012 & conn. cases 27 purchasing 'E' and 'O' schedule properties, in spite of executing Ext.B1 agreement in the name of Sri.Joy, separate agreements were executed

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

The appeal is disposed of

2 of 16 in sustaining the order dated 29.2.2012 of the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” 3. The present appeal by the appellant-assessee relates to the Assessment Year 2007-08. The appellant-assessee had filed return declaring income of Rs.1,82,68,953/- under normal provisions and book- profit

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

2) Did the ITAT fall into error in holding that the sum of `25,04,385/- brought to tax by the AO on the interest free deposit of ` 1,75,50,000/- was not sustainable?; (3) Is the ITAT’s order- that the assessee’s revised net taxable income of ` 4,08,24,559/- held

V.C. NANNAPANENI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

In the result, the appeals are allowed

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

68,625/- and in the process of determination, the said officer has included a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- received by the appellant from Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited (hereinafter referred to as “RLL”) towards “non-competition fee” included under the head “income from other sources” and treated it as revenue receipt and accordingly subjected the same to tax. As regards

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