Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [TDS] vs. M/s.KCIL-MEIL [JV]

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

37 the Hon'ble High Court held that " an assessment cannot be based on the entires found in the books of accounts of a third party without giving to the assesse an opportunity to cross examining that party with reference to those books if so required and that this is a requirement of natural justice ". The Intelligence officer

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Energy Solutions International India Pvt Ltd.,

Bench: J. UMA DEVI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

37, which has the following text: “Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in section 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee) laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under

Commissioner of Income Tax-V, vs. M/s.Sirveen Control Systems

Appeal is partly allowed

37 YEARS R/AT NO.90, 8TH MAIN, 8TH CROSS SAMPANGIRAMANAGAR BENGALURU. ...APPELLANTS [BY SRI.A.G. SHIVANNA, ADVOCATE A/W SRI. G. UDAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE (VIDEO CONFERENCE)] 2 AND: 1. SRI. P. MUNIYAPPA, DEAD BY LRS - APPELLANTS 2. SMT. ASWATHAMMA W/O. SRI. M.S. HARISH BABU AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS. 3. SRI. NANJUNDESHWARA C/O. SRI. P. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NO.58

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed

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

68 upon the said ammonium nitrate, fell upon the appellants, and they were affected thereby; reclassification of ammonium nitrate cast an obligation on the appellants to pay excise duty, that was leviable as a result; such an obligation did not arise merely by reason of an agreement between SAIL and the appellants, but also by virtue of the provisions

M/s. PLL-Suncon Joint Venture vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

section 14 of the partition act that the asset of the plot of the Kamal Cinema became the asset of the partnership firm and Shri O P Kapoor on becoming partner later on, is entitled to share in the same in accordance with his shareholding in the same.” 21. The arbitral tribunal further directed as under: “para 95. Thus

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

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

37, 38, 39, 40 and 42 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882 were referred to. Section 5 of the Society Registration Act, 1860 and Section 16 of the State Act were also referred to. It is submitted that PDB during her lifetime did not have any right of nomination of any Member of the managing committees

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. The Andhra Petro Chemicals Limited

68 of the State Universities Act, 1973. The representation submitted by him was rejected by the Chancellor vide order dated 19.05.2017. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Chancellor and has sought other reliefs also, which are extracted above. In his representation made to the Chancellor, petitioner contended that respondent no. 4 was not qualified

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

37(1). The advance to sister concerns in question in the case on hand are opening balance carried forward from the Previous Year and when so no disallowance can be made.” 9. It is argued by the revenue that ITAT has failed to appreciate that for the claim of interest, it is necessary that, firstly, the money ITA Nos.512/2013, 516/2013

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

37. The Supreme Court had also adverted to the procedure of provisional assessment as embodied in Section 18 and explained its significance in the following words: ―22. The significance of Section 18 of the Act can be understood in the light of the above provisions. Section 18 provides for provisional assessment of duty in cases specified

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

37. The Supreme Court had also adverted to the procedure of provisional assessment as embodied in Section 18 and explained its significance in the following words: ―22. The significance of Section 18 of the Act can be understood in the light of the above provisions. Section 18 provides for provisional assessment of duty in cases specified

THE COMMISSIONER OF I.T.-I, HYDERABAD. vs. M/S. AKASH CABLE TV NETWORK PVT.LTD., HYDERABAD.

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

37 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 24th April, 2012. + ITA 252/2012 + ITA 253/2012 + ITA 258/2012 AZEEM INVESTMENT PVT LTD ..... Appellant Through Mr. R. Santhanam and Mr. A P Sinha, Advs. versus CIT ..... Respondent Through Mr. Deepak Chopra, sr. standing counsel with Mr. Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, vs. Ms. Poornima Datla

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

section 37 cannot be applied and its not a mistake apparent on the face of record which could have been rectified and contended that it is a case of review which is impermissible under the Act. Counsel on merits contended that “Balli” is entirely a different product and contended that timber is understood to be “imarathi Lakdi

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S. SIVARAMA REDDY

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

68)/SFRC/14- 15/9728 dated 19.02.2016” (viii) It was in this scenario that the Association challenged the impugned Notification, mainly contending that the SFRC recommendations once having been accepted, and notified, exercise of power rescinding the same was arbitrary and illegal, and therefore the rescinding order had necessarily to be set aside. LPA 733/2017 and connected matter Page

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

37. It is therefore, asserted that from the admitted facts, the fact that the alleged documents having gone missing or the cheques along with the Covering letter not having been issued by the Complainant, is on the face of it patently incorrect. The learned ASJ has rightly appreciated the facts and the documents to conclude that there is no offence

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

68-C of the old Act, pending on the date of enforcement of the new Act, namely, 1.7.1989, • the period of one year as prescribed under S. 100(4) should be computed from the date of commencement of the new Act. This interpretation would give full effect to • both. the Sections

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

37. To search for and to purchase, protect, prolong, renew or otherwise acquire from any Government, state or authority any patents, protections, permissions, authorization, consents, licenses, concessions, grants. decrees. rights, powers and privileges whatsoever which may seem to the Company capable of being turned into account to work, develop, carry out exercise and turn to account the same. Page

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s.ZENOTECH LABORATORIES LIMITED

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

section 153A of the Income Tax Act,1961 (‘the Act’) without going into merits of the same. This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003544 ITA No.311/2022 Page 2 of 4 3. This Court finds that both the CIT(A) and the ITAT have given concurrent findings of fact that no incriminating evidence/material had been found during