Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

Sections reads thus:- “26. Purpose for which the market development fund may be expended.The marketing development fund shall be utilised out of following purposes: (i) better marketing of agricultural produce ; (ii) marketing of agricultural produce on co-operative lines ; (iii) collection and dissemination of market rates and news ; (iv) grading and standardisation of agricultural produce; (v) general improvements

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68; and in particular paragrpah 8; 2. V.K.Jhamb V C.M.Bhatia, 1985 Bom. R.C. 293; 3. Trikam Jivraj Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1969 Gujarat 69' 4. Bai Devmani V. Raviskankar, AIR 1929 Bombay 147. He also relied upon Section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 67. In paragraph 66

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

In the result, the judgment and decree passed by the

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

V.C. NANNAPANENI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

In the result, the appeals are allowed

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

68,625/- and in the process of determination, the said officer has included a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- received by the appellant from Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited (hereinafter referred to as “RLL”) towards “non-competition fee” included under the head “income from other sources” and treated it as revenue receipt and accordingly subjected the same to tax. As regards

M/s. Canara Securities Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO,T.AMARNATH GOUD

66 of 300 terms of the said provision the Joint APLs stepped into the shoes of estate/deceased. Further in view of Section 247 of the Hindu Succession Act an administrator acts as a general administrator (barring the power of distribution of estate) and thus the provisions of Section 211 and 305 of the Succession Act would apply

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S.SREC PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Sections 66, 84 and 79 & 79 (2) (VIII) of MV Act. 4. While relying upon a case of M.C. Mehta Vs. UOI, (1977) 8 SCC 770, the learned counsel submitted that the respondent Nos.1 & 2 are guilty of violation of permit conditions on account of the grounds mentioned below:- a) That suitable speed control device was not fitted

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax - II vs. M/s. Kumar Raja Associates

In the result, all the Tax Revision

Bench: Floor, Opp.Gurudware Bus Stop, Th Stat, 0/O.Meghana Towers, 4 Visakhapatnam. ... Petitioner & M/S.Pulp-N-Pack [P] Limited, Tadimalla ... Respondent : Sri T.C.D.Sekhar, Gp For Commercial Tax Counsel For The Respondent : Sri S Suribabu, Representing On Behalf Of Sri S R R Viswanath Counsel For The Petitioner

66. To sum up, we answer the reference holding as under: 66.1. Exemption notification should be interpreted strictly; the burden of proving applicability would be on the assessee to show that his case comes within the parameters of the exemption clause or exemption notification. 66.2. When there is ambiguity in exemption notification which is subject to strict interpretation, the benefit

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, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed

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

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 81 71. (1954) 5 STC 348 (T-C) 72. (1955) 2 SCR 374 73. (1895) Q.B. 749 74. 15 Ves. 396, 406 75. 1995 Supp

THE COMM. OF INCOME TAX RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/S B.KRISHNA MURTHY AND OTHERS

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

66. Accused Ravi Prakash absconding is also a proved circumstance. 67. Accused Kamal @ Pinki absconding is a proved circumstance. 68. Giving of call from Sheer Pur Pathak PCO booth at phone Crl.A.247/2000 & Crl.A.81/2003 Page 25 of 55 No.6173166 of Amar Nath Gupta is not a proved circumstance. 69. Giving of phone call at No.6470485 installed at Dish Restaurant of which

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

68. The patent illegality in the impugned award does not stop with the reopening of the proceedings to inquire into the authenticity of the specimen letter TA-9. Shri R.S. Chauhan AW-2, the inspector who was an independent witness had clearly stated that he had asked the respondent Raman Kapoor FAO(OS) 373/2011 Page 20 of 44 about

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Margadarshi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd.,

The appeal is dismissed

68 taxmann.com 334 wherein on ITA-228-2013 2023:PHHC:047619-DB 4 24.07.2009, a search was conducted and notice under Section 148 was issued to the appellant . In response to this notice, the assessee filed its return. However, the assessee did not produce supporting vouchers for expenses, details of purchases and stocks and copies of partners’ bank accounts

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:

66,667/- as transfer permission fee on the basis of notification dated 18.12.2007 for effecting such change. A copy of the said notification is at page 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

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

66. In the whole set of circumstances of the case, the scope of this case would be, to peruse the point of law regarding the rights of the plaintiff and 68 the contentions of the defendants. The material before this court is: “The proceeding that was in force before the Sub Registrar and District Registrar were for compulsory registration