The Commissioner of Income TAx-IV, vs. M/s. Mahaveer Enterprises (India) Limited

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

45 of 76 C/LPA/94/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2021 RAVJIBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL SINCE DECD. THR'HEIRS V/s ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY U.L.C. interest in,or charge on, the property. This is expressly declared in Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. (See Rambaran Prosad v. Ram Mohit Hazra [1967]1 SCR 293). The fiduciary character of the personal obligation

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.

68. As noted hereinabove, in terms of the agreement the plaintiff is to provide “a suitable alternate accommodation” to the respondent no. 2 and 3 in the preferred localities. It is already noticed hereinabove that there was a major dispute between the parties with respect to the availability of such suitable alternate accommodation. In any case, what such suitable alternate

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S. SIVARAMA REDDY

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

68)/SFRC/14- 15/9728 dated 19.02.2016” (viii) It was in this scenario that the Association challenged the impugned Notification, mainly contending that the SFRC recommendations once having been accepted, and notified, exercise of power rescinding the same was arbitrary and illegal, and therefore the rescinding order had necessarily to be set aside. LPA 733/2017 and connected matter Page

Commissioner of Income Tax-V, vs. Sri Vinod Krishna Conjeevaram,

The appeal is dismissed

68 of the Act is nto attracted. The Appellate Authority was justified in deleting such addition. Insofar as addition on account of goodwill is concerned, when the Appellate Authority accepted the contention of the assessee during the remand proceedings that there was no transfer of goodwill, Section 45(4) is not attracted and accordingly, it found no ground

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

A.P.State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited vs. The Income tax Officer

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

45 and 47 of the Act the opinions of experts and of persons acquainted with the handwriting of the person concerned are made relevant. Section 68 deals with the proof of the execution of the document required by law to be attested; and it provides that such a document shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

45 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters i) The Statutory authority cannot permit its decision to be influenced by the dictation of others as this would amount to abdication and surrender of its discretion which is impermissible in law. ii) General power of superintendence must be distinguished from the interference in the adjudication process. The authority in which

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

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

45 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters i) The Statutory authority cannot permit its decision to be influenced by the dictation of others as this would amount to abdication and surrender of its discretion which is impermissible in law. ii) General power of superintendence must be distinguished from the interference in the adjudication process. The authority in which

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

45 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters i) The Statutory authority cannot permit its decision to be influenced by the dictation of others as this would amount to abdication and surrender of its discretion which is impermissible in law. ii) General power of superintendence must be distinguished from the interference in the adjudication process. The authority in which

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

45 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters i) The Statutory authority cannot permit its decision to be influenced by the dictation of others as this would amount to abdication and surrender of its discretion which is impermissible in law. ii) General power of superintendence must be distinguished from the interference in the adjudication process. The authority in 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

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Hyderabad House Pvt Ltd.,

68,520/-* 26.04.2014 L. 02.10.2011 11 years 3,75,000/- 31.05.2014 M. 02.05.2012 14 years 3,75,000/- 29.09.2014 N. 04.02.2013 4 years 3,75,000/- 29.07.2013 * excluding medical expenses also awarded. 27. The above table graphically demonstrates not only divergence of opinion but also inconsistencies in approach. The incongruity is vivid. A case of death of three months

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

Section 1. Assignment and Assumption. Assignor hereby assigns to the Assignee all the rights, entitlements, covenants and obligations of the Assignor under the Equipment Contract to sell, supply and deliver the Equipment to the Purchaser under the Equipment Contract and the Assignee hereby assumes, and agrees with all of the parties hereto, to perform, observe and be bound

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-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-I vs. M/s. BDR Projects Pvt. Ltd.

45 of 66 but the very basis on which a non-levy, short-levy or erroneous refund occurring prior to 8th April 2011 should be dealt with. (iv) Prior to 8th April 2011 and even subsequent thereto, only a „proper officer‟ who has been „assigned‟ specific functions by the CBEC or the Commissioner as amended by Section

The Commissioner of Income Tax - I vs. M/s. BBL Foods (Earlier Amber Biscuits P Ltd.)

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 3(2) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. 39. It is quite explicit from the available facts and evidence that, in order to arrange separate Bank loans for Mat.Appeal No.242 of 2012 & conn. cases 27 purchasing 'E' and 'O' schedule properties, in spite of executing Ext.B1 agreement in the name of Sri.Joy, separate agreements were executed

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

Section 2(15) of the Act?. 44. We are dealing with a taxing statute. The intention of the legislature in a taxation statute is to be gathered from the language of the provisions particularly where the language is plain and unambiguous. In a Taxing Act, it is not possible to assume any intention or the governing purpose