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

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-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

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

The appeal is allowed

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

45 cannot be successfully rebutted by merely raising a probability, however reasonable, that the actual fact is the reverse of the fact which is presumed. Something more than raising a reasonable probability is required for rebutting a presumption of law. The bare word of the appellant is not enough and it was necessary for him to show that upon

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

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 - 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

45. We are of the view that, the exemption notification is under Section 9 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. Sub-section (2) of Section 9 provides, under clause (b), that any exemption from tax notified under sub-section (1) may be subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be specified

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

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

5) To harmonise is not to destroy any statutory provision or to render it otiose”. 60. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Thirumagal Mills Ltd. (1972) 1 SCC 176, it was explained as under: “The principle which has been laid down clearly is that validation of tax which has been declared to be illegal may be done only

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

5(c) lays down that … No officer, employee or agent engaged in the performance of investigative or prosecuting functions for any agent in any case shall, in that or a factually related case, participate or advise in the decision… This provision provides for the functional separation as against the structural separation within the same agency body, and is subject

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

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

5(c) lays down that … No officer, employee or agent engaged in the performance of investigative or prosecuting functions for any agent in any case shall, in that or a factually related case, participate or advise in the decision… This provision provides for the functional separation as against the structural separation within the same agency body, and is subject

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

5(c) lays down that … No officer, employee or agent engaged in the performance of investigative or prosecuting functions for any agent in any case shall, in that or a factually related case, participate or advise in the decision… This provision provides for the functional separation as against the structural separation within the same agency body, and is subject

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

5(c) lays down that … No officer, employee or agent engaged in the performance of investigative or prosecuting functions for any agent in any case shall, in that or a factually related case, participate or advise in the decision… This provision provides for the functional separation as against the structural separation within the same agency body, and is subject

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

5 of 41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT an appeal before the CIT (A) contending that  the entire loss has wrongly been denied to be  set   off   against   the   other   incomes   of   the  assessee.   The   assessee   made   several  submissions before the CIT (A). The CIT (A)  thereafter  allowed  the  loss  claimed  by  the  assessee except to the tune of Rs.75,000/­ in  respect

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

5 of 41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT an appeal before the CIT (A) contending that  the entire loss has wrongly been denied to be  set   off   against   the   other   incomes   of   the  assessee.   The   assessee   made   several  submissions before the CIT (A). The CIT (A)  thereafter  allowed  the  loss  claimed  by  the  assessee except to the tune of Rs.75,000/­ in  respect

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

5 of 41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT an appeal before the CIT (A) contending that  the entire loss has wrongly been denied to be  set   off   against   the   other   incomes   of   the  assessee.   The   assessee   made   several  submissions before the CIT (A). The CIT (A)  thereafter  allowed  the  loss  claimed  by  the  assessee except to the tune of Rs.75,000/­ in  respect

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