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

The appeals are dismissed

sections 68 and 69 of the Act. In consideration of all these observations, we are inclined to hold that the share application money as raised in the grounds of appeal ITA Nos.547/2013 & other connected matters Page 9 of 13 cannot be held as non-genuine and added as income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. Consequently, additions

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

Sections 73, 74 and 75 49 of the Indian Registration Act, indicate the formalities. 49. When the execution is denied by the seller after completing formalities of execution, the Sub- Registrar would get authority to admit the execution. The purchaser has a right to present the document for compulsory registration. In this case, it was not the case

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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

54 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. present facts before us, the possession taken over by the State authority on 24.11.1993 was justified and legally undertaken through Panchnama process and in our opinion, no valid exception to the same can be taken by the Appellant

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s. Madhu Enterproses

Bench: Adverting To The Facts Of The Case It Is Beneficial To Mention Here That No Affidavit Had Been Filed On Behalf Of The State (Present Appellant In Both The Appeals) In Either Of The Two Writ Petitions. Learned Counsel Appearing For The State Before The Hon’Ble Single Judge Had Agreed For Disposal Of The Two Writ Petitions Without Affidavits Being Filed On The Ground That Arguments Have To Be Advanced On Question Of Law Only. 3. A Compendium Of Facts Relevant For Disposal Of These Appeals Is As Follows:

68 of WP No. 24788 (W) of 2010. The aforesaid notification of 2007 contemplates deposit of fees for transfer of “lease hold rights” for different categories of land in Kalyani Township. The transfer fee from the respondent company has been demanded in terms of the circular of December 2007. 4 5. Further the jurisdictional District Magistrate did not give permission

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

Bench: L.NARASIMHA REDDY,T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

54 ThemostrelevantdocumentinthisregardisaletterfromC.V.Rao to N.Subash dated 10'09' 1996 (Ex'B166 Appeals), which 1n 9PA I l I I speci{ically states the following: ".....Moreouer, the deuelopment ogreements are only nominol unregi.stered documents and the moneg transfer and retran'sfer I I 21. betueen [t age Deuelopers put. Ltd_ and Aou ana t1o,r famit! member:: is tnlg for occounting purpose

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

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

54 ThemostrelevantdocumentinthisregardisaletterfromC.V.Rao to N.Subash dated 10'09' 1996 (Ex'B166 Appeals), which 1n 9PA I l I I speci{ically states the following: ".....Moreouer, the deuelopment ogreements are only nominol unregi.stered documents and the moneg transfer and retran'sfer I I 21. betueen [t age Deuelopers put. Ltd_ and Aou ana t1o,r famit! member:: is tnlg for occounting purpose

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

54 ThemostrelevantdocumentinthisregardisaletterfromC.V.Rao to N.Subash dated 10'09' 1996 (Ex'B166 Appeals), which 1n 9PA I l I I speci{ically states the following: ".....Moreouer, the deuelopment ogreements are only nominol unregi.stered documents and the moneg transfer and retran'sfer I I 21. betueen [t age Deuelopers put. Ltd_ and Aou ana t1o,r famit! member:: is tnlg for occounting purpose

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

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

The appeal is allowed

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

54 placed it in his T-shirt's book pocket, with PW-5 allegedly overhearing the conversation between PW-2 and the appellant. vii. Upon completion of the transaction, PW-2 signaled the C.B.I. officers by rubbing his face with a handkerchief, prompting the apprehension of the appellant, who confessed to his wrongdoing. The appellant was directed to present

SHRI GYAN KUMAR AGARWAL (INDL) vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

54,200A and after deducting the tax, the assessee is liable to pay balance tax for an amount of Rs.4,.12,.158/_ and penalty under Section 158 BC and 158 BD of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee fired appear before the commissioner of rncome Tax (Appeals)-|, Hyderabad and the appelrate authority dismissed the appeal

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68,478/­.  However,   it   was   seen   that   at   page   88   the  assessee  has  enclosed  computation  of total  income of GAFL according to which income has  been computed at NIL by chiming unabsorbed  business   loss   brought   forward   from   Asst.  Year 1991­92 at Rs. 16,38,462/­ and in the  note   total   business   loss   to   be   carried  forward to asst. year 1993­94

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68,478/­.  However,   it   was   seen   that   at   page   88   the  assessee  has  enclosed  computation  of total  income of GAFL according to which income has  been computed at NIL by chiming unabsorbed  business   loss   brought   forward   from   Asst.  Year 1991­92 at Rs. 16,38,462/­ and in the  note   total   business   loss   to   be   carried  forward to asst. year 1993­94

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68,478/­.  However,   it   was   seen   that   at   page   88   the  assessee  has  enclosed  computation  of total  income of GAFL according to which income has  been computed at NIL by chiming unabsorbed  business   loss   brought   forward   from   Asst.  Year 1991­92 at Rs. 16,38,462/­ and in the  note   total   business   loss   to   be   carried  forward to asst. year 1993­94

Pinna Nageswara RAo, vs. Commissioner of Income tax, IV (A.P)

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

54 of 171 Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus UOI & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA + LA.APP. 156/2011 & CM APPL

PRL COMMR OF INCOME TAX-7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S SRI VENKATESWARA PADMAVATHI COMPAY, KHAMMAM DIST

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

54 of 171 Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus UOI & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA + LA.APP. 156/2011 & CM APPL