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

The appeal is allowed

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

41 prosecution would have failed to discharge the duty cast upon it of satisfying the jury beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. That, however, was a case where the question before the jury was whether a presumption of the kind which in India may be raised under Section 114 of the Evidence Act could be raised

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.

41 of 66 valid or suffers from some infirmity. In case the court comes to the conclusion that the levy of tax is not valid as the legal provision enacted for this purpose does not warrant the levy of tax imposed because of some defect in phraseology or other infirmity, the Legislature quite often passes an amending and validating

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

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

41 of 57 international airport basis, INCOTERM 2000, from the country/ies of export and insurance from Vendor’s warehouse to Substantial Completion” meant that the supplier was liable to deliver the equipment to the carrier at the port of shipment/airport of departure which in the present case would be outside India. The said interpretation has not been disputed on behalf

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

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

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-III, Hyderabad vs. M/s. Vasant Intermediates Private Limited

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Ashok S. Kinagi

41 YEARS S/O NAGAPPA REDDY ALL ARE R/AT No.2, G. No.8TH STREET JOGUPALYA, ULSOOR BANGALORE - 560 008. ….RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. M.D. ANURADHA URS, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A. RAMESH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3 VIDE ORDER DATED 27.7.2009, R-4 HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED

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

41. To establish and support or aid in the establishment and support of associations, institutions, funds, trusts and conveniences calculated to benefit employees or ex- employees of the company or the dependants of such persons, and to grant pension and allowances to make payment towards insurance of such persons and generally to provide for superannuation benefits; 42. To procure

M/s. Maruthi Movies vs. Income Tax Officer

Bench: This Court & Making The Same A Rule Of Court, Alongwith Decree Against Respondents Awarding Rs.5,35,920/- Paid By The Petitioner To The Arbitrator As Their Share Of Fees As Per Order Dated 21.12.2010. 2. Respondent No.1 Has Filed Its Objections To The Award Under Section 30 & 33 Of The Act In Form Of I.A. No.9067/2011. Respondent No.2 Has Also Filed Its Objections To The Award.

1) of Section 14. The clause (b) of sub-section (3) deals with suits for execution of formal deed of partnership and the clause (c) deals with enforcement of a contract for the construction of any building or the execution of any other work on land. Thus, Clause (c) deals with pure and simple building contracts under which

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

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

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

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.Samrakshna Electricals Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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

M/s.GVK Petro Chemicals Private Limited,(Novo Resins AND vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,

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

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

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

Appeal is partly allowed

68 of Evidence Act would not be attracted to question validity of a gift deed. Hence, there are no 27 good or sufficient reasons to interfere with finding of trial Court insofar as Ex.P.8 - gift deed. 33. At the same time, plaintiffs also sought to deny relationship between defendant no.1 and defendants no.2 and 3 by specific pleadings. But, defendants