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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

40) Relied on Vasantha Anirudhan v. State of Kerala (2008) 128 VST 97 (Ker) When considering the findings arrived at by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) with regard to 8B bills in the wake of the contention raised by both sides, we are constrained to concede with the finding of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) that "merely for the reason

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

Appeal is partly allowed

40 YEARS R/AT NO.58, 4TH FLOOR CHIKKANNAMMA TEMPLE STREET JORIPET, BENGALURU - 560 002. 3. SMT. ANNAPOORNA M. W/O. SRI. SURESH D/O. MUNIYAPPA P. AGED ABOUT 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

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

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

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 to the societies

Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Visakhapatnam vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Paderu

Appeal stands dismissed,

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

40,380/-. A notice was issued under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and the assessee was directed to furnish the details of the unsecured loans reflected in the balance sheet of the relevant assessment year. The assessee by communication dated 08.10.2007 took up a new contention that the partnership firm

The Commissioner of Income Tax - II vs. M/s. Kumar Raja Associates

In the result, all the Tax Revision

Bench: Floor, Opp.Gurudware Bus Stop, Th Stat, 0/O.Meghana Towers, 4 Visakhapatnam. ... Petitioner & M/S.Pulp-N-Pack [P] Limited, Tadimalla ... Respondent : Sri T.C.D.Sekhar, Gp For Commercial Tax Counsel For The Respondent : Sri S Suribabu, Representing On Behalf Of Sri S R R Viswanath Counsel For The Petitioner

40 RNT, J & HN, J TREVC. No. 83 of 2008 & batch sub-section (2) of Section 8 with reference to the tax payable under the CST Act by a dealer on his turnover in so far as the turnover or any part thereof relates to sale or purchase of any goods. If sale or purchase of the goods

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

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 in sub-section (1) of the section. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) deals

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

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 in sub-section (1) of the section. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) deals

THEE COMMSSR.OF INCOME TAX.HYD. vs. CHALLA SHANKER REDDY.HYD.

Bench: L.NARASIMHA REDDY,T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

40. A co-rrr,linate Bench of this court passed an ad ir terim order in the Partition A.pp:al (c.c.c.A.No. 12o of 2o131on oir.1 1.2o 3 suspending the impugned jr-ulgment and decree d,ated 2g.o3.2013 Th: respondents filed I.A.No.il of 2'013 on 13.11.2013 for vacating the siid ad interim order. 41. Issues r.rncer the GPA Apoeals

COMMR.OF I.T. RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/S.NARAYANA CHOWDARYAND ORS KAKINADA

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

40. A co-rrr,linate Bench of this court passed an ad ir terim order in the Partition A.pp:al (c.c.c.A.No. 12o of 2o131on oir.1 1.2o 3 suspending the impugned jr-ulgment and decree d,ated 2g.o3.2013 Th: respondents filed I.A.No.il of 2'013 on 13.11.2013 for vacating the siid ad interim order. 41. Issues r.rncer the GPA Apoeals

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - (TDS), vs. M/s. Suman Chit Funds (P) Ltd.,

40. A co-rrr,linate Bench of this court passed an ad ir terim order in the Partition A.pp:al (c.c.c.A.No. 12o of 2o131on oir.1 1.2o 3 suspending the impugned jr-ulgment and decree d,ated 2g.o3.2013 Th: respondents filed I.A.No.il of 2'013 on 13.11.2013 for vacating the siid ad interim order. 41. Issues r.rncer the GPA Apoeals

The Commissioner of Income TAx-IV, vs. M/s. Mahaveer Enterprises (India) Limited

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

section (1), the competent authority shall determine the nature and extent of such claims and pass such orders as it deems fit. (3) At any time after the publication of the notification under sub-section (1) the competent authority may, by notification published in the Official Gazette of the State concerned, declare that the excess vacant land referred

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. M/S GOLDEN STAR FACILITIES AND SERVICES PVT LTD., HYD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Section 13 which provides for Rule making power of the Central Government in respect of minerals. Section 13 subsection (1) WP(C). 11249/2010 & other contd cases. -:88:- and Section 13 Sub-section (2) in so far as relevant in the present case are as follows: “13. Power of Central Government to make Rules in respect

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Margadarshi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd.,

The appeal is dismissed

Section 40 (a) (ia) of the Act 1961 payment of Rs.1,01,016/- made to Satake India Engg (P) Ltd on account of AMC was disallowed. Further Rs.56,650/- incurred on purchase of UPS held to be capitalized and depreciation was ordered to be charged on it. Rs.7650/- were added to the income of the assessee on account

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.Sri Krishna Drugs Limited

In the result this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act for short) on account of share application money. It is apparent that there was substantial addition of Rs.81,40

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Chirla Rama Reddy, Contract

Appeal is dismissed with costs

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice N.K.Sudhindrarao R.S.A.No.70/2007

40. O.S.No.32/1994 on the file of learned II Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore, was filed by the 1st defendant wherein she claimed that consent given by her was polluted by flaws like coercion and undue influence and therefore she is not liable under the said document and sought declaration that the same is null and void. The said suit came

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

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,

Appeals are allowed

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

40. The word ‘or’, as used in Section 3 of the Excise Act, can only mean that the Central Government has the power to levy duty either on “manufacture” or on “production” or on both. The language of Section 3 is clear, and the Excise Act does not require us to substitute ‘or’, or read this word interchangeably