PENDURTHI CHANDRASEKHAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The appeal is allowed and all the four substantial

68. The fourth question of law relates to the addition of interest accrued on the unsecured loan granted to M/s. Dakshin Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, we shall answer the questions of law category wise. Substantial questions of law 1 to 3: 16. All these substantial questions of law revolve around the gift allegedly made by the father

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT referred   to   the   following   submissions  recorded   by   the   Tribunal   in   the   impugned  order   made   on   behalf   of   the   assessee   as  under: “14.   Further   he   contended   that   GAFL   has  shown profit on sale of shares on which the  loss has been denied to the assessee. He in  this regard referred to the assessment order  of GAFL which

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT referred   to   the   following   submissions  recorded   by   the   Tribunal   in   the   impugned  order   made   on   behalf   of   the   assessee   as  under: “14.   Further   he   contended   that   GAFL   has  shown profit on sale of shares on which the  loss has been denied to the assessee. He in  this regard referred to the assessment order  of GAFL which

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT referred   to   the   following   submissions  recorded   by   the   Tribunal   in   the   impugned  order   made   on   behalf   of   the   assessee   as  under: “14.   Further   he   contended   that   GAFL   has  shown profit on sale of shares on which the  loss has been denied to the assessee. He in  this regard referred to the assessment order  of GAFL which

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

41, 43, 45, 69, 75, 77, 88 and 89, no document shall be registered under this Act, unless the persons 64 executing such document, or their representatives, assigns or agents authorized as aforesaid, appear before the registering officer within the time allowed for presentation under sections 23, 24, 25 and 26: Provided that, if owing to urgent necessity

M/S NMDC LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed

Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

41. Section 12 of the Act, which is pertinent in the present case, can be resorted to either of the parties for annulling the marriage as the grounds set fourth therein are satisfied. Section 12 of the Act is quoted below: “12. Voidable marriages. - (1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, shall

The Commissioner of Income -Tax - III, vs. Shri Taher Ali

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

41 / 79 CRA-322-08gr read with 108(o) of the T.P.Act is concerned, the evidence of PW 4 Powale, Structural Engineer and the reports made by him at Exhibit -H, remained absolutely unchallenged. The Courts below after appreciating the evidence on record have concurrently held that defendant no.2 has carried out additions and alterations of permanent nature

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

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

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

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

68 ; f. Ad interim order in terms of prayers above ; (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 28 of 300 g. Such further and/or other order or orders be passed and/or direction or directions be made as to this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper. GA/4/2021 (APO/92/2020) Prayer a. Injunction

M/s. Kausalya Shelters Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

41 of 76 68. He further submitted that the petitioner‟s obligation of payment of rent for the remainder lock-in period is a genuine pre-estimate of the loss suffered by respondent as the rented property in question is located at a prime location in Delhi and the area in question also comprised of a significant area

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

41,29,837 under Section 24 of the Act. 43. During the assessment proceedings, in its reply dated 15th December 1997 to the query raised by the AO, the Assessee pointed out that there is nothing in law which prohibited the leasing out of stock and trade. It relied on the decision in CIT v. Chagan Das and Company

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

41,29,837 under Section 24 of the Act. 43. During the assessment proceedings, in its reply dated 15th December 1997 to the query raised by the AO, the Assessee pointed out that there is nothing in law which prohibited the leasing out of stock and trade. It relied on the decision in CIT v. Chagan Das and Company

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed

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

41. The word “produced” is used, besides the word “manufactured”, not in one particular Section, but in several provisions of the Excise Act. Similarly, the word “producer” is also used, besides the word “manufacturer”, in several Sections of the said Act. If, as is contended before us, the word “produced” were to mean the same as “manufactured”, would

THE APR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. SHRI TUMMALA SRI RAM BABU

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Section 9 of the Act was directed to be listed alongwith O.M.P (COMM) 432/2017. Both the petitions were taken up together on 19.12.2019. Order was reserved in the present petition while O.M.P(COMM) 432/2017 was directed to be listed on 23.03.2020, as the order in that petition was dependent on the outcome of the present petition

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

41 RNT, J & HN, J TREVC. No. 83 of 2008 & batch 62. In Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Corporation Bank^^ mth respect to the interpretation of an 'Explanation', it was observed that function of explanation, in a particular statute whether is to clarify the ambiguity or to widen the scope of the main section, to determine, there

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

41 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters court will have to judge the matter as a reasonable man would judge of any matter in the conduct of his own business. In R. v. Sussex Justices [(1924) 1 KB 256, 259 : 1923 All ER Rep 233] it has been indicated that answer to the question whether there was a real