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 stood discharged by the Assessee.” 1 Tax Case No.24 of 2011, decided on 4.4.2017. 7/9 (Tax Case No. 63 of 2022) 9. Coming to the facts of the case, it is quite vivid that though the appellant/assessee has provided the names of Ms. Seema R. Mutreja from whom he took Rs.2,50

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S. SIVARAMA REDDY

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

50 (vii) On March 10, 2016, the Notification dated February 19, 2016 stood rescinded. It is noted that the rescinding order had been issued within 25 days from the issuance of the original Notification. Relevant extract of the Notification issuing the rescinding order reads as under: “And further in exercise of the powers conferred by sub sections

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

Sections 68, 69 and 69A. In fact, the said assessment orders produced along with the records clearly indicate that the officer had conducted enquiries and found that there was no evidence of assets acquired by the said agent; using the amounts that came into similar accounts maintained by that assessee. In the present case, the Assessing Officer

M/S. GAUTAMI POWER LIMITED vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

section of statute cannot be used to defeat those of another unless it is impossible to • , • reconcile the same. In Venkataramana Devaru v. StaLC • of Myore, AIR 1958 SC 225 at p.268, this Court observed: LPA 24212011 with connected matters ' .age 30 of 50 "The rule of construction is well settled that when there are in an enactment

PENDURTHI CHANDRASEKHAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The appeal is allowed and all the four substantial

Section 68. 8. Similarly, the Assessing Officer added interest income as per the TDS Certificate, to the Income Tax return. 9. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) granted relief in so far as the unsecured loan received by the assessee from Smt. Shanti Chowdary, who was none else than the wife of the assessee. This was on the basis

Paro Food Products, vs. Commissioner of Income Tax -VI

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

50,000/- under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which was dismissed by an order dated 29.09.2009. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was upheld by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. The Andhra Petro Chemicals Limited

68 of the State Universities Act, 1973. The representation submitted by him was rejected by the Chancellor vide order dated 19.05.2017. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Chancellor and has sought other reliefs also, which are extracted above. In his representation made to the Chancellor, petitioner contended that respondent no. 4 was not qualified

The Commissioner of Income -Tax - III, vs. Shri Taher Ali

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68. As far as the ground of non user under section 13(1)(k) of the Act is concerned, he has invited my attention to paragraphs 72 and 73. He submitted that it has come on record that defendant no.1 has permanently shifted to Muscat some time in the year 1989. Thus, the plaintiffs have established that defendant no.1

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Hycons Infrastructure (India) Ltd.

The appeals are dismissed

Section 5A of the Act has been exercised an d exemption granted, a larger/superior public interest has to be shown for curta iling/modifying/ withdrawing an exemption already granted and in such eventualit y, the onus shall be on the Revenue and the same cannot be discharged by merely referring to the contention that the petitioners/assessees are claiming the exem

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Energy Solutions International India Pvt Ltd.,

Bench: J. UMA DEVI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

68 ITR 200 (207) 5 273 ITR 50 - 15 - ITA No. 383 of 2016 from the precincts of Section

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. 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

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

Section 68 of the Act for the A.Y. under consideration. As regards capital accounts of partners Shri Anil Khetrapal and Shri Sunil Khetrapal the Commissioner also added credit of balance amount, namely, Rs.59,00,000/- from Shabnam Khetrapal and Rs. 50

THE COMMISSIONER OF I.T.-I, HYDERABAD. vs. M/S. AKASH CABLE TV NETWORK PVT.LTD., HYDERABAD.

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

50 days in refiling the present appeals. Ld. counsel for the respondent waives right to file reply and submits that the application may be disposed of on merits. It is stated in the application that the clerk of the counsel had misplaced the file and therefore, he took time to rectify the defects. For the reasons stated in the application

Commissioner of Income tax, vs. M/s. Southern Rocks and Minerals Private Limited

Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and is maintainable in this Court. 36. This Issue is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff. ISSUE NO.3 3. Whether the suit premises are governed by the provisions of Public Premises Act as contended by the defendant? OPD. 37. A preliminary objection has been taken

Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Visakhapatnam vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Paderu

Appeal stands dismissed,

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

50 ITR 1 (SC) to rubbish the contention raised by the assessee and uphold the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 7. In the context of the binding precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we respectfully notice the decision cited on behalf of the Revenue. In Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif (supra), it was declared that the onus of proving

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

50. A bare perusal of the Services Contract clearly indicates that the task of installation, commissioning and testing was contracted to Nortel ITA 666/2014 & Ors. Page 38 of 57 India and thus, the operations pertaining to installation and commissioning were not performed by Nortel India on behalf of the Assessee or Nortel Canada but on its own behalf. Thus, neither

Commissioner of Income Tax-i, vs. Agricultural Market Committee

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar

50,000.00 `2,68,000.00 9 Loan received from brother -- `3,25,000.00 10 Proceeds of NSC 11 Agriculture income 12 Customary gifts Total Income `9,59,279.00 `9,59,279.00 `9,59,279.00 `9,59,279.00 `17,35,170.50 `17,35,170.50 `17,35,170.50 `17,35,170.50 6. But according to the accused, the computation of income from