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

6 of the Act are totally different from assigning the power of issuing an SCN to a Customs Officer under Section 4 of the Act. Analysis of Section 28 (11) of the Act 43. The first issue is to be considered whether Section 28 (11) cures the defects pointed out by the Supreme Court in Sayed

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. 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

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 6

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

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

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

Bench: L.NARASIMHA REDDY,T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

43. The GPA executed by N. Subash in favour of C.V.Rao should be seen with reference to the GPAs executed by C'V' Rao in favour of the appellant/lmage Developers as well as the otheri GPAs exequted by C' Sesharatnamma (appellant No.3 in the Partition Appeal) I in favour of C.V.Rao as also the GPA executed by M/s'Image ance

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

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

43. The GPA executed by N. Subash in favour of C.V.Rao should be seen with reference to the GPAs executed by C'V' Rao in favour of the appellant/lmage Developers as well as the otheri GPAs exequted by C' Sesharatnamma (appellant No.3 in the Partition Appeal) I in favour of C.V.Rao as also the GPA executed by M/s'Image ance

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

43. The GPA executed by N. Subash in favour of C.V.Rao should be seen with reference to the GPAs executed by C'V' Rao in favour of the appellant/lmage Developers as well as the otheri GPAs exequted by C' Sesharatnamma (appellant No.3 in the Partition Appeal) I in favour of C.V.Rao as also the GPA executed by M/s'Image ance

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax - IV vs. M/s. Mekins Agro Product (P) Ltd.

43 (SC). We shall refer to this judgment subsequently. In order to appreciate the contention raised by the Revenue, we would like to give one example which would clarify the contention or the issue raised before us. An assessee, a charitable institution, say has income from property held underTrustof Rs.1,00,000/-. As per mandate of clause

Gutta Venkata Rama Devi vs. The Income Tax Officer

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

43 of 171 and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kartik Jindal, Ms. Palak Gupta, Ms. Supriya Udey, Advocates for DA. + LA.AP. 101/2010, CM APL. 14013/2015 RATO DEVI DECD THR LRS & ORS .Apelants Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR .Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

43 of 171 and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kartik Jindal, Ms. Palak Gupta, Ms. Supriya Udey, Advocates for DA. + LA.AP. 101/2010, CM APL. 14013/2015 RATO DEVI DECD THR LRS & ORS .Apelants Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR .Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Sri Laxmi Narasimha Wines,

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

43 of 171 and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kartik Jindal, Ms. Palak Gupta, Ms. Supriya Udey, Advocates for DA. + LA.AP. 101/2010, CM APL. 14013/2015 RATO DEVI DECD THR LRS & ORS .Apelants Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR .Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing

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

Pinna Nageswara RAo, vs. Commissioner of Income tax, IV (A.P)

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

6 of 171 Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. + LA.APP. 338/2015, CM APPL. 2671/2016 & 41910/2016 FAKIR CHAND (DECEASED) THR LRS & ORS .....Appellants Through: Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Deepak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with

PRL COMMR OF INCOME TAX-7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S SRI VENKATESWARA PADMAVATHI COMPAY, KHAMMAM DIST

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

6 of 171 Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. + LA.APP. 338/2015, CM APPL. 2671/2016 & 41910/2016 FAKIR CHAND (DECEASED) THR LRS & ORS .....Appellants Through: Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Deepak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with

Kuchipudi Krishna Kishore vs. THE DCIT, CIR-2[1],

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

6 of 171 Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. + LA.APP. 338/2015, CM APPL. 2671/2016 & 41910/2016 FAKIR CHAND (DECEASED) THR LRS & ORS .....Appellants Through: Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Deepak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with