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

Appeal is partly allowed

45 YEARS R/AT NO.58, 1ST FLOOR CHIKKANNAMMA TEMPLE STREET JORIPET, BENGALURU - 560 002. 2. SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR S/O. SRI. MUNIYAPPA P. AGED ABOUT 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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

45/­ per share  against which purchase were made on 27.12.91 of  23,900   shares   @   Rs.10/­   and   1100   shares   on  1.3.90 @ Rs.10/­. Thus he pleaded that assessee  had earned a sum of Rs. 38,500/­ as long term  profit and Rs.8,36,500/­ as short term profit.  He   contended   that   if   Assessing   Officer   is  treating   loss   as   not   allowable   arising

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

45/­ per share  against which purchase were made on 27.12.91 of  23,900   shares   @   Rs.10/­   and   1100   shares   on  1.3.90 @ Rs.10/­. Thus he pleaded that assessee  had earned a sum of Rs. 38,500/­ as long term  profit and Rs.8,36,500/­ as short term profit.  He   contended   that   if   Assessing   Officer   is  treating   loss   as   not   allowable   arising

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

45/­ per share  against which purchase were made on 27.12.91 of  23,900   shares   @   Rs.10/­   and   1100   shares   on  1.3.90 @ Rs.10/­. Thus he pleaded that assessee  had earned a sum of Rs. 38,500/­ as long term  profit and Rs.8,36,500/­ as short term profit.  He   contended   that   if   Assessing   Officer   is  treating   loss   as   not   allowable   arising

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

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 or unavoidable accident

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 - I vs. AP State Warehousing Corporation Ltd.,

In the result, (i) A.S.(MD)No

Bench: The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court Date Of Reserving The Judgment Date Of Pronouncing The Judgment 08.10.2025 05.11.2025 Coram: The Honourable Mr.Justice C.V.Karthikeyan & The Honourable Mr.Justice R.Vijayakumar A.S.(Md)Nos.12 & 17 Of 2016 & C.M.P.(Md)Nos.854 Of 2016, 4032 & 4276 Of 2025 A.S.(Md)No.12 Of 2016

Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, that the reason why the appellant had refrained from forwarding the document was that he had, as a fact, signed the Agreement. 45. Subsequently, even before this Court, the appellant reiterated the same contention and, in this connection, filed an application in C.M.P

Commissioenr of Income Tax vs. Dr. T. Ravi Kumar

45,911/-, which in the order section 143(3) was determined at depreciation loss of Rs. 114,47,28,440/-. The same was subsequently revised under section 154 at a loss of Rs. 114,46,13,711/- and further recomputed at Rs. 116,30,34,284/- after appeal effect . In another words the assessed figure at all stages

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

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. 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

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

Bench: L.NARASIMHA REDDY,T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

45. The issu.r' es; to whether the GpAs executed by the clefendants were in favour of tht: l/Tanaging Director of the plaintiff (Image .)evelopers) or in an indiviclual r:,rpacit5r was duly framed by the Trial Co rrt. The Trial Court answerr:d ihe issue in favour of the responder, ts / r lsf6nfl2n15 [y holding thar 'he GPAs were execuled

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

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

45. The issu.r' es; to whether the GpAs executed by the clefendants were in favour of tht: l/Tanaging Director of the plaintiff (Image .)evelopers) or in an indiviclual r:,rpacit5r was duly framed by the Trial Co rrt. The Trial Court answerr:d ihe issue in favour of the responder, ts / r lsf6nfl2n15 [y holding thar 'he GPAs were execuled

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

45. The issu.r' es; to whether the GpAs executed by the clefendants were in favour of tht: l/Tanaging Director of the plaintiff (Image .)evelopers) or in an indiviclual r:,rpacit5r was duly framed by the Trial Co rrt. The Trial Court answerr:d ihe issue in favour of the responder, ts / r lsf6nfl2n15 [y holding thar 'he GPAs were execuled

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

45. State of West Bengal had enacted the West Bengal Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2012. Several writ petitions had been filed challenging the vires of the Act of 2012. By the impugned judgement and order dated June 24, 2013, learned Single Judge had held the Act of 2012 to be ultra vires Article

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed

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

45, oleo-resin of roots under Tariff Item No. 1301 90 46, and other oleo-resins under Tariff Item No. 1301 90 49. As these oleo-resins are classified in Chapter 13, under Section II of the First schedule to the Tariff Act which relates to vegetable products, they are all natural produce, and may not involve a process

The Pr. Commissioner of Income vs. Shri. Vishnu Mohan Reddy Chintapally

Appeal is disposed of

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

68,09,650/-. 9. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. But was, thereafter, picked up for scrutiny under CASS. A notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 03.09.2015 and duly served upon the Firm on 04.09.2015. Further, notices under Sections