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

Section 68 of the Act and the legal position referred to above, we are of the opinion that the assessee has failed to discharge its initial burden to prove that the money of Rs.48,58

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 - 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

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. M/S GOLDEN STAR FACILITIES AND SERVICES PVT LTD., HYD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

58:- conferred under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation), Act, 1957, a Central enactment. Section 15(1A)(e) of the Act, 1957 deals with the procedure for obtaining quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions. 5. Section 3(c) of the Act, 1957 defines mining lease as a lease granted

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 COMMI.OF INCOME TAX,HYD. vs. VAIBHAV

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

68 of the Act as "Income from other sources". Thus, by the assessment order dated 30.03.2000 passed under Section 1a3(3) of the Act, the aforesaid addidons were made to the total income of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the above order of the assessment, assessee preferred first appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V (C-entral

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

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Dr. T.Ravi Kumar

The appeal is disposed of

68,569 78,20,892 58,17,89,461 Less: 15% set apart for application to charitable or religious purpose Balance 85% to be applied 87,268,419 494,521,042 Less: Application of Income Expenses (excluding business activity and Depreciation) Expenditure as per Income and Expenditure Account-Donation Less: Capital Expenditure

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

The appeal is allowed

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

58 xvi. PW-6's testimony took a different direction during questioning, resulting in his classification as a hostile witness. During cross- examination, PW-6 disclosed that the monthly deposit associated with PW-2's account was Rs. 300/- under the applicable scheme. The most recent deposit occurred on the 7th of March 1997, pertaining to the February installment, along

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s OM R.S.Wines

Appeal is hereby allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68 Years 3. Devkumar S/o Nityanand, Aged About 58 Years 4. Laxmi Kumar S/o Nityanand, Aged About 63 Years 5. Pramod Kumar S/o Nityanand, Aged About 59 Years 6. Ramesh Kumar S/o Nityanand, Aged About 55 Years 7. Kamlesh Kumar S/o Nityanand, Aged About 51 Years 8. Umesh Kumar S/o Nityanand, Aged About 45 Years All are R/o Vill- Changori

THE COMMISSIONER OF IT IV vs. M/S. OCEAN SPARKLES LIMITED

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

58,244 Duty 25.04.2007 41,13,971 Duty 22.01.2008 7,13,000 Redemption fine 22.01.2008 5,48,000 Penalty 22.01.2008 16,68,234 Interest As such whatever payments have been made stand duly reflected in the books and cannot be characterized as investment from the undisclosed sources. The total amount paid by the Assessee Company in respect of the said

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. K. V. Srinivasa Rao

Section 145 of the Evidence Act. If a contradiction is put to the witness and it is denied by him, then his attention has to be drawn to the statement made by such witness before the Police or any other previous statement and he must be given a reasonable opportunity to explain as to why such contradiction appears

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

68,520/-* 26.04.2014 L. 02.10.2011 11 years 3,75,000/- 31.05.2014 M. 02.05.2012 14 years 3,75,000/- 29.09.2014 N. 04.02.2013 4 years 3,75,000/- 29.07.2013 * excluding medical expenses also awarded. 27. The above table graphically demonstrates not only divergence of opinion but also inconsistencies in approach. The incongruity is vivid. A case of death of three months

M/s. PLL-Suncon Joint Venture vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

58 of the interim award, the arbitral tribunal held that for construction of the cinema and its equipment, the partnership sought a loan from the financial institutions and from the business of partnership more assets were acquired and loan was paid. In para no. 59, the arbitrator found that: “in the letters dated 15.02.1994 and 24.04.1992 allegedly written

The Commissioner of Income Tax I vs. M/s. Bhagiradha Chemicals AND Industries Ltd.,

The appeal is disposed of

68,953/- under normal provisions and book- profit of Rs.9,85,25,142/-. Tax was payable on book profits as per Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short). The aforementioned return was taken up for scrutiny and additions of Rs.1,00,500/- and Rs.1,17,141/- on substantive basis, and Rs.10 lacs on protective basis

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

58. The statement of the two attesting witnesses, i.e. Mr. S. K. Mangla and Mr. Ajay Kumar Bindal, were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C by the Investigating Officer, who stated that they had signed the MoU at the instance of Respondent No. 1 Harish Bindal, but had not seen the Complainant signing it. This prima facie raises the question