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

68. There is also merit in the contention of the Petitioners that Section 28(11) confers validity only on „the proper officer.‟ As explained in Consolidated Coffee Ltd. v. Coffee Board (supra), the use of article „the‟ as opposed to „an‟ or „any‟ is indeed significant. Only officers who have been assigned the functions of the „proper officer

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

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

68-C of the old Act, pending on the date of enforcement of the new Act, namely, 1.7.1989, • the period of one year as prescribed under S. 100(4) should be computed from the date of commencement of the new Act. This interpretation would give full effect to • both. the Sections-S. 100(4) and S. 217(2

PENDURTHI CHANDRASEKHAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The appeal is allowed and all the four substantial

68 of the Income Tax Act, is right in law in holding that there should be sufficient reasons for receiving gifts though it is from father-in-law and the gift is covered by the provisions of Section 56 of the Act? 2

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 INCOMETAX vs. M/S V.SATAYANARAYANA

The appeal is allowed

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

56 Inspector, Rajib Debnath, was instructed to retain Rs. 200/- for incidental expenses. A kit comprising various items such as empty bottles, a clean bowl, a C.B.I. metal seal, etc., was prepared. They then proceeded to the location of the incident, arriving at 1:15 pm. xi. PW-3 recalled that during the transaction as part of the entrapment process

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed

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

56. 1988 (Supp) SCC 239 57. AIR 1963 SC 791 58. 46 S.T.C. 63 59. (1999) 3 SCC 632 60. (1969) 3 SCR 674 61. (1990) 184 ITR 129 (SC) 62. (2007) 8 SCC 412 63. (2003) 4 SCC 184 64. (2003) 11 SCC 129 65. 1994 ECR 349 (SC) 66. 1995 Supp

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

The Pr. Commissioner of Income tax (Central), vs. Sri Vaishnavi Educational Society,

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.51929/2014 C/W W.P.Nos.42063/2012, 30494/2013, 42671/2013, 638/2014, 797/2014, 1089/2014, 3211/2014, 3389/2014, 6180/2014, 10356/2014, 12014/2014, 12015/2014, 13043/2014, 13045/2014, 13206/2014, 13207/2014, 13398/2014, 13774/2014, 14149/2014, 14161/2014, 14494/2014, 14502/2014, 14521/2014, 14689/2014, 16646/2014, 17051/2014, 17594/2014, 19729/2014, 21158/2014, 23897/2014, 28861/2014, 30731/2014, 31723/2014, 33774/2014, 33777/2014, 34084/2014, 34259/2014, 34272/2014, 34391/2014, 35204/2014, 35243/2014, 35247/2014, 35305/2014, 35609/2014, 36164/2014, 36166/2014, 36489/2014, 36525/2014, 36971/2014, 37446/2014, 38055/2014, 38463/2014, 38471/2014, 38472/2014, 38661/2014, 38753/2014, 39383/2014, 39633/2014, 39832/2014, 40204/2014, 40379/2014, 41394/2014, 41422/2014, 41427/2014, 41428/2014, 41858/2014, 43815/2014, 43963/2014, 44306/2014, 44527/2014, 44742/2014, 44835/2014, 45486/2014, 46766/2014, 47103/2014, 47105/2014, 47106/2014, 47107/2014, 47608/2014, 47731/2014, 47821/2014, 47860/2014, 47913/2014, 48577/2014, 48880/2014, 49567/2014, 50260/2014, 50533/2014, 51294/2014, 51930/2014, 51931/2014, 51932/2014, 52760/2014, 53854/2014, 54059/2014, 54083/2014, 54236/2014

SECTION 24(2) OF RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT 2013. IN W.P.NO.797/2014: BETWEEN: SRI.N.RAMAIAH S/O. LATE NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/A NO.708, HEANNUR MAIN ROAD, KAVERI SERVICE STATION, KALYAN NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 043. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. G. PAPI REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKASA

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 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-V, vs. M/s.Sirveen Control Systems

Appeal is partly allowed

56 YEARS. 3. SRI. NANJUNDESHWARA C/O. SRI. P. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NO.58, GROUND FLOOR, CHIKKANNAMMA TEMPLE STREET, JORIPET, BENGALURU - 560 002. 4. SRI. M. PRAKASH, S/O. SRI. MUNIYAPPA P. AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.58, 1STFLOOR, CHIKKANNAMMA TEMPLE STREET, JORIPET, BENGALURU - 560 002. 5. SRI. M. MANJUNATHA S/O. SRI. MUNIYAPPA P. DEAD

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

68 of Evidence Act will show that “Attestation” and ’Execution” are two different acts one following the other. There can be no valid execution of a document which, under the law, is required to be attested without the proof of its due attestation and if due attestation is not proved, the fat of execution is of no avail.” 56

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

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

56 years, R/o 169, Nobel Residency, 2nd Cross, SOS Post, Bannergatta Road, Bengaluru-76. …Appellant (By Sri R.Nagendra Naik, Advocate) AND: State by CBI/ACB, Ganganagar, Bellary Road, Bengaluru. …Respondent (By Sri Madhav Kashyap, Advocate for Sri P.Prasanna Kumar, Advocate) This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the judgment and conviction dated

PR COMMR OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. K RAVINDER REDDY, HYDERABAD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

2)(l). We find no infirmity in the ruling of ARR on this aspect. In the above situation, MSCo is rendering services through its employees to MSAS. Therefore, the Department is right in its contention that under the above situation there exists a service PE in India ITA 621/2017 & connected matters Page 54 of 85 (MSAS). Accordingly, the civil appeal

Commissioner of Income Tax [TDS] vs. Sri VAraha Laxmi Nrusimha Swamy DEvastanam

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

56 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943 WA NO. 509 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 535/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE PROVINCIAL SUPERIOR SISTERS OF THE CROSS OF CHAVANOD, PULIYANAM

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Swapna Lahari Pvt Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

56 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943 WA NO. 509 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 535/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE PROVINCIAL SUPERIOR SISTERS OF THE CROSS OF CHAVANOD, PULIYANAM