The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.Visakha Industries Ltd

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 68 will be attracted only when the assessee offers no explanation or the explanation so offered is not satisfactory to the Assessing Officer. It was found that in the present case assessee had established the identity of the creditor, the source for the credit and the genuineness of the transaction and had thereby discharged the initial burden

Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. M/S Sri Ramanjaneya Poultry Farm Pvt., Ltd.,

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

Section 245(D)(6) of the Income Tax Act vide Order dated 20.9.2005. It is this order which crystallized/assessed the amount payable by the plaintiff to the defendants and the amounts; including CS(OS) No.713/2006 Page 9 of 14 interest; which were to be refunded by the defendants to the plaintiff. Since this entire order would be relevant

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

In the result, the judgment and decree passed by the

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 to be purchased

The Commissioner of Income-Tax - VI, vs. Shri Mekala Bal Reddy

Section 34. 67. In the end, it is argued that burden on the prosecution to establish guilt of the accused never shifts. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex court in Shri Kishan and others vs State of U.P reported in 1972 SCC Crl 875 and in Emperor vs U.Damapal reported in AIR 1937 Rangoon

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 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

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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3 vs. M/S SHRIRAM CHITS PVT. LTD

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

67 68 69 70 ITA 617/2018 & CM APPL. 21414-21416/2018 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1 Appellant versus GE ENGINE SERVICES DISTRIBUTION LLC Respondent ITA 618/2018 «fe CM APPL. 21417-21419/2018 THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) -1 Appellant versus GE ENGINE SERVICES MCALLEN LP Respondent ITA 619/2018 & CM APPL. 21420-21422/2018 THE PR.COMMISSIONER

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. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed

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

67. We must, however, also bear in mind that the importance of Tariff entries in the First Schedule has been emphasized by Parliament when, in Section 2(f)(ii) of the Excise Act, it defines “manufacture” to include any process which is specified in relation to any goods in the section or chapter notes of the schedule

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

67. The words 'this Section' in the newly inserted sub-section (11) of Section 28 obviously refers to Section 28 as enacted with effect from 8th April 2011 and not the Section 28 which existed prior to that date. The effect of Section 28(11) is to treat all officers of the Customs

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

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

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 accused Subash Gupta is proprietor is a proved circumstance

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

67 a Registrar for the purposes of this sub-section and of Part XII.] 65. Thus, what could be understood is, during the pendency of the suit, the appeal came to be filed before the District Registrar and it is nothing but simultaneous proceedings for the same relief was being initiated. The Hon’ble Apex Court has made

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

67. Further, registration of the Sale Deeds in violation of Section 32A of the Registration Act and Rule 72A of the Rules, which make it incumbent on the Registering Officer to call for and examine one of the identity cards as enumerated in the said Rule, go a long way to demonstrate the fraud involved, as has been declared

M/s National Academy of Construction, vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax (Exemptions)-I,

68 years, b/c Oswal, r/o Jain Street, Sarafa Bazar, House No. 67, Jwala Vihar, Jodhpur (Raj). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan Through P P ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.K. Singhi Sr. Adv. With Mr. O.P. Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.S. Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G R MOOLCHANDANI Order 10/09/2018 This petition is directed against the order

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