Commissioner of Incometax-1, Hyderabad vs. M/s. Divis Laboratories Ltd.,

The appeals are allowed

64 of the Finance Act, the persons (i) who had failed to furnish return of income under Section 139 of the Act or (ii) who had failed to disclose in a return of income, certain income chargeable to tax under the Income Tax Act or which had escaped assessment, were given an opportunity of full disclosure

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Natco Exports Ltd.

In the result, the judgment and decree passed by the

64, 65, 66, 67, 68 and 69 for which payment has already been made through bank drafts and the sale deeds were executed subsequently on 25.10.1999. From the boundary of plot no. 142 it is apparent that in east of plot no. 142 was the road (Chhwar) in the western side were plot no. 65 which had already been agreed

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

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. The Andhra Sugars Limited,

Appeal is disposed of as not pressed, without

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

64) for the Opponent(s) No. 1 LD SR ADV.MR.MANISH BHATT for the Opponent (s) No.1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 28/10/2021 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI) 1. For considering the substantial question of law on 25.01.2012, this Court has admitted this appeal. Following is the substantial question

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 (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

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

64 executing such document, or their representatives, assigns or agents authorized as aforesaid, appear before the registering officer within the time allowed for presentation under sections 23, 24, 25 and 26: Provided that, if owing to urgent necessity or unavoidable accident all such persons do not so appear, the Registrar, in cases where the delay in appearing does

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

The Commissioner of Income tax-III, Hyderabad. vs. Delco Remy Electricals (India) Limited

64) for the Defendant(s) No. 5,6 RULE UNSERVED(68) for the Defendant(s) No. 3 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE Date : 27/09/2019 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The appellant—insurance company has assailed judgement and award dated 14.09.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Page 1 of 7 C/FA/199/2006 JUDGMENT Claims Tribunal, Gandhidham-Kutch in MACP No. 232 of 2002 whereunder

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 IV vs. Shri Raaj Kumar Jain

Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused has denied his implication in the case/offence and has claimed that he was tortured and that his nails were extracted, his genitals were burnt and petrol was put in his anus. He offered to get himself medically examined to prove his allegations. The accused SK also claimed that he was extended other tortures

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

section 14 of the partition act that the asset of the plot of the Kamal Cinema became the asset of the partnership firm and Shri O P Kapoor on becoming partner later on, is entitled to share in the same in accordance with his shareholding in the same.” 21. The arbitral tribunal further directed as under: “para 95. Thus

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed

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

64. (2003) 11 SCC 129 65. 1994 ECR 349 (SC) 66. 1995 Supp (3) SCC 1 67. (2008) 224 ELT 337 (S.C.) 68. 1973 KLT 463 69. (1988) 69 STC 29 (Kerala DB) 70. 36 LJQB

The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Vaishnavi Educational Society

In the result, this Cross Objection is allowed and the suit is

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

64. Obviously, therefore, when Exhibits B11 and B39 Powers of Attorney are thus found to be not 'irrevocable', the subsequent Powers of Attorney dated 24.10.2007, namely Exhibits A7 and B12 - which, admittedly, were issued on account of a mistake in Exhibit B11 Power of Attorney dated 17.10.2007 of Smt.Indira Basheer, wherein Sri.Shajideen was described to be her brother

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

64. The facts in brief for AY 1997-98 were that the interest amount of Rs.32225676 comprised the following  “Rs.1,07,91,828/- on CC limit, paid to IndusInd Bank Ltd.  Rs.2,14,33,848/- on loan of Rs.9 Cr. taken from Citi Bank.” 65. The AO disallowed the interest paid to IndusInd Bank on the ground that the interest

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

64. The facts in brief for AY 1997-98 were that the interest amount of Rs.32225676 comprised the following  “Rs.1,07,91,828/- on CC limit, paid to IndusInd Bank Ltd.  Rs.2,14,33,848/- on loan of Rs.9 Cr. taken from Citi Bank.” 65. The AO disallowed the interest paid to IndusInd Bank on the ground that the interest