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

SYED ABBAS MIAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-I,KURNOOL

43. The following issues have arisen for consideration in the present matters: 31 i. What is the effect of the ratio of Jindal Stainless Ltd. (supra) on the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated June 24, 2013? ii. Was the Entry Tax Act, 2012 in force at the time of its amendment on March

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

The appeal is allowed

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

43 the High Court that the finding recorded by the trial court in this regard is patently perverse. Both these witnesses, who at the material time were holding responsible positions in State Bank of India and Canara Bank respectively, categorically stated that they saw PW 9 taking out the notes from his shirt's pocket and handing over the same

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

43. Section 5 A(l)(vi) of APGST Act uses the expression "generally, under sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the said Act". The expression 'generally' has not been defined in the Act, 1957. It has also not been explained in the APGST Act, like under Section 8(2A) of the Central Sales

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

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

43 of 66 (2) The provisions of one Section of a statute cannot be used to defeat the other provisions unless the Court, in spite of its efforts, finds it impossible to effect reconciliation between them. (3) It has to be borne in mind by all the Courts all the time that when there are two conflicting provisions

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

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

43 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was not established; and the Commissioner of Income-tax used to hear appeals while he was a party to the departmental proceedings also. Till 1960, the Central Board of Revenue too had power to hear appeals in estate duty matters against the order passed by the Controller

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

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

43 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was not established; and the Commissioner of Income-tax used to hear appeals while he was a party to the departmental proceedings also. Till 1960, the Central Board of Revenue too had power to hear appeals in estate duty matters against the order passed by the Controller

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

43 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was not established; and the Commissioner of Income-tax used to hear appeals while he was a party to the departmental proceedings also. Till 1960, the Central Board of Revenue too had power to hear appeals in estate duty matters against the order passed by the Controller

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

43 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was not established; and the Commissioner of Income-tax used to hear appeals while he was a party to the departmental proceedings also. Till 1960, the Central Board of Revenue too had power to hear appeals in estate duty matters against the order passed by the Controller

Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. M/S Sri Ramanjaneya Poultry Farm Pvt., Ltd.,

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

68,514.00 2. Rs.1,44,00,000 18.12.99 18.12.99 – 31.5.01 @ 1% p.m. for 18 months 1.6.01 – 31.5.02 @ 0.75% p.m. for 12 months 1.6.02 – 31.8.04 @ 2/3% p.m. for 27 months Rs.25,92,000.00 Rs.12,96,000.00 Rs.25,66,080.00 3. Rs. 37,08,667 29.01.2000 29.1.2000 – 31.5.01 @ 1% p.m. for 5 months 1.6.01 – 31.5.02 @ 0.75% p.m. for 12 months

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Shri Raaj Kumar Jain

68 11.01.07 Following FIRS are re-registered by the CBI. The accused are taken into CBI custody. Victim RC No. 2(S)/07/SCB/DLI 'A' RC No. 3(S)/07/SCB/DLI 'B' RC No. 6(S)/07/SCB/DLI 'C' RC No. 5(S)/07/SCB/DLI 'D' RC No. 9(S)/07/SCB/DLI 'E' RC No. 7(S)/07/SCB/DLI 'F' RC No. 8(S)/07/SCB/DLI

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.

43. This takes me to the further submission of the learned counsel for respondent no. 1 wherein he submits that in the present case, Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act before amendment would not be applicable as the present is not a case of a contract to transfer immovable property. He submits that for the purposes of falling

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

43 / 79 CRA-322-08gr contemplated by Section 13(1)(e) and non user as contemplated by Section 13 (1)(k) of the Act. 59. Plaintiffs have contended that defendant no.1 has, since coming into operation of the Act, unlawfully sub-let or given on leave and licence, the whole or part of the suit premises

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed

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

43. (1928) 1 KB 561 44. (1888) 13 A.C. 603 45. (2005) 4 SCC 530 46. (1951) 2 All ER 839 (HL) 47. (1990) 3 SCC 682 48. (1989) 4 SCC 323 49. (1995) 3 SCC 23 50. 1978 (2) ELT 389 (SC) 51. (1907) 52 L Ed. 336 52. (1961) 2 SCR 14 53. (1997) 5

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

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

43. Second agreement marked as Ex.P18 dated 21-9-1991 was entered into because there was an error regarding mentioning of the extent of the schedule property as 223 acres 05 guntas. However, the actual extent as per survey records was 223 acres and 30 guntas. The period to execute the sale deed mentioned therein is 5 months