THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX vs. M/S V.SATAYANARAYANA

The appeal is allowed

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

37 l. In the case of from B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P12 the Hon‘ble Supreme Court observed as follows : ―7. Insofar as the offence under Section 7 is concerned, it is a settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot

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

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s. BDR Projects Pvt. Ltd.

37 of 66 47. Although it was repeatedly stressed by learned counsel for the Respondents that Section 28 (11) and Explanation 2 to Section 28 can be harmonized and that for that purpose the SOR appended to the Validation Act, 2011 must be referred to, the Court is unable to undertake that exercise without doing violence

Commissioner of Income Tax-i, vs. Agricultural Market Committee

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar

37,900.00 4 OD account Canara Bank `12,506.00 5 LIC Survival Benefits `28,000.00 6 Dividend Received on shares `3,595.00 7 Sale of Site Coimbatore `2,32,000.00 8 Gift received from father `2,68,000 9 Loan received from brother `3,25,000 10 Proceeds of NSC `86,500 11 Agriculture income `1,22,000 12 Customary

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, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed

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

37. (1999) 5 SCC 138 38. (1986) 2 SCC 512 39. AIR 1950 SC 27 40. (1969) 1 SCR 219 41. (1980) 1 SCC 158 42. (2010) 10 SCC 744 43. (1928) 1

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

37 of 57 Services, requiring certification shall be certified by independent and appropriate professionals licensed or properly qualified to perform such certification in an appropriate jurisdictions, reasonably acceptable and at no cost to Reliance, if such certification is required by Applicable Law or the Specifications. Vendor shall provide to Reliance, necessary installation Certificates, as per EPCG regulations for which

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

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

Bench: J. UMA DEVI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

1) section 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 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

37:- R1 BY ADV. SRI. ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL R2 BY ADV. SRI. T. NAVEEN, SC THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.05.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C). NO.11249/2010 AND OTHER CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C). 11249/2010 & other contd cases. -:38:- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

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

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 Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.Visakha Industries Ltd

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1 SHRI.T.B.KUNHIMAHIN HAJI THEKKIL PO, KASARAGOD-671 541 ADDL.R2 TO R7 IMPLEADED 2 S.L.P KUNHIBI W/O. SHRI. KUNHIMAHIN HAJI, PADOOR HOUSE, CHETTANCHAL POST.,THEKKIL VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3 K.M. THAHIRA, AGED 48 YEARS D/O SHRI. T.B. KUNHIMAHIN HAJI, -DO-DO- 4 K.M. MOHAMMED SHEREEF, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O SHRI. T. B. KUNHIMAHIN HAJI, -DO - DO- 5 K.M. MOIDEEN KUNHI, AGED

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

37 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 43. The principal argument of the assessee is that all these orders were passed by the AO at the dictate of the superior authority whereas according to the Revenue, the DIT (Inv.) was just monitoring the investigation as the matter was under consideration before the Supreme Court. 44. The position

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

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

37 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 43. The principal argument of the assessee is that all these orders were passed by the AO at the dictate of the superior authority whereas according to the Revenue, the DIT (Inv.) was just monitoring the investigation as the matter was under consideration before the Supreme Court. 44. The position