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

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Atyam Suryanarayana

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 5Th February 2024. Appearance: Mr. Om Narayan Rai, Advocate Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate …For The Appellant. 1. Heard Sri Om Narayan Rai, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Appellant. None Appears For The Respondent Assessee. 2. Affidavit Of Service Filed Today By Learned Counsel For The Appellant, In Compliance Of The Orders Dated 17.02.2023 & 15.01.2024, Is Taken On Record. Service Of Notice Upon The Respondent Assessee Is Found To Be Sufficient. 3. This Appeal Was Admitted By Order Of This Court Dated 03.09.2010, On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law:- “I) Whether The Learned Tribunal Was Justified On The Facts & Circumstances Of This Case To Follow The Ratio Decided By The

5 CIT(A) in the respondent/assessee invoking Section 68 of the Act, 1961. He referred to provisions of Section

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

5) (b) and (c) of the Entry Tax Act, 2012 have been amended. By the amendments introduced, retrospective effect from April 1, 2012 have been given to the meaning of the expression “taxable turnover of imports” as appearing in section 4 (1) of the Act of 2012. 52. It is in this factual matrix that we are considering

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Sri B.Ramanarayanba Rao

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 12Th December, 2023 Appearance: Ms. Anupa Banerjee, Adv. …For The Appellant. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. ...For The Respondent. 1. Supplementary Paper Book Filed Today By The Assessee Is Taken On Record. 2. Heard Ms. Anupa Banerjee, Learned Counsel For The Appellant/Assessee & Mr. Amit Sharma, Learned Standing Counsel For The Respondent/Income Tax Department. Facts: 3. Briefly Stated Facts Of The Present Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In Trading (Export & Domestic) Of

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1961’). 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld the aforesaid addition. 5

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

The appeal is allowed

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

Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act as they stood prior to the amendment made by the Act 16 of 2018 with effect from 26th July 2018. We are referring to Sections 7 and 18 2023 SCC Online SC 280 60 13 as they stood on the date of commission of the offence. Section

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [TDS] vs. M/s.KCIL-MEIL [JV]

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68, section 69 and section 70 passed by an authority empowered to do so under this Act not being an authority above the rank of an Assistant Commissioner may, within a period of thirty days from the date on which the order was served on him, appeal against such order, xxx xxx xxx (5

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Sri Ch.Govardhan Naidu

The appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

Section 68 of the Act. Against the assessment order, the appellant/assessee preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the CIT(A) by Order dated 4.1.2017. Assailing the order of the CIT(A), the appellant/assessee again preferred an appeal before the ITAT who also dismissed the appeal of the appellant/assessee by the Order dated 30.3.2022. It is against these orders

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Hyderabad vs. M/s. Vasant Intermediates Private Limited

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Ashok S. Kinagi

5) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is perverse and arbitrary? (6) What order or decree? 9. Point No.1: It is the case of the plaintiffs that Muniswamiappa @ Ammojappa as well as his four sons namely Munipapaiah, Ramaiah, Muniappa and Venkataswamy constitute an undivided Hindu joint family and they were having substantial

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

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

5. Smt. Ram Piari executed a Will dated 12.08.1996, whereby she bequeathed the rear portion of the house at Kautalya Marg to Shri Rajneesh Bahl and the front portion jointly to S/Shri Ashok Bahl and Dinesh Bahl. All movables were divided in equal shares amongst the three sons. Shri Ashok Bahl was appointed the Executor of the said Will

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

5 of the Jammu & Kashmir General Sales Tax Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the exemption granted under the State Sales Tax Act was a general exemption. The dealers / assessees were held entitled to claim the benefit of the provision contained in sub-section (2A) of Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act in view

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.Visakha Industries Ltd

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 68 will be attracted only when the assessee offers no explanation or the explanation so offered is not satisfactory to the Assessing Officer. It was found that in the present case assessee had established the identity of the creditor, the source for the credit and the genuineness of the transaction and had thereby discharged the initial burden

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 Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-1 vs. M/s. New River Software System Pvt Ltd.,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 68 of the Act for Assessment Years (AYs) 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. These amounts were primarily towards share application money received from various companies. The AO made additions/disallowance of Rs. 7,05,00,0001- on account of unexplained share capital/share application money received by the assessee company from Paradigm

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Adaptec [India] Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

Section 68 of the Act for Assessment Years (AYs) 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. These amounts were primarily towards share application money received from various companies. The AO made additions/disallowance of Rs. 7,05,00,0001- on account of unexplained share capital/share application money received by the assessee company from Paradigm

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

SRS AND Sri Sai Ganesh Productions vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Central)

Section 68, 69 and 69A as unexplained cash credits and investments. Considering the fact that the entire transactions were hawala transactions, commission at the rate 2% was also assessed as income of the assessee. The First Appellate Authority and the Tribunal confirmed it, against which the present appeal is filed. For the year 2004-05, the entire amounts deposited

M/S. SRIMAN SAI SECURITIES INV. FIN. LTD., vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,KARIMNAGAR.

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,M.S.K.JAISWAL

5. Section 68 of the Act, as it stood before provisos were added, reads as follows: "Where any sum is found