The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-1 vs. M/s. New River Software System Pvt Ltd.,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

sections 68 and 69 of the Act. In consideration of all these observations, we are inclined to hold that

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Adaptec [India] Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

sections 68 and 69 of the Act. In consideration of all these observations, we are inclined to hold that

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

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

Section 69 of the Act. However, the CIT(A) enhanced the quantum of addition by Rs.2,92,694/- from Rs.1,37,07,306/- to Rs.1,40,00,000/-, which was the value computed by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (hereafter ‘DRI’). 5. In the aforesaid context, it would be expedient to examine the explanation provided by the Assessee before

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.Sri Krishna Drugs Limited

In the result this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act for short) on account of share application money. It is apparent that there was substantial addition of Rs.81,40,000/- for similar reasons in the Assessment Year 2006-07 (see the impugned order ofthe tribunal dated 2"^ March, 2012, which relates to Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08). Suffice

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Jyothi Wines,

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

69. Notice was initially issued under Section 68, proposing addition of unexplained credits; but eventually the additions were made

SHRI GYAN KUMAR AGARWAL (INDL) vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

Sections 68, 69, 694, 698 and 69C of the Act will apply 6 and the reference to the financial

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

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

68 of 300 Section 2(55) of the said Act that is a person whose name is entered in the Register of Members or the beneficial owner in the records of the depository. It is submitted that in the instant case even by the respondent’s own showing since the estate does not hold or even control directly

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

69, 75, 77, 88 and 89, no document shall be registered under this Act, unless the persons 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

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed

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

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 Commissioner of Income Tax - VI vs. Sri Danda Dharanidhar

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

69 of the above judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court. 6. He further prayed that the Assessing Officer (AO) be directed to create demand in relation to the amount of interest only inasmuch as the agents of respondent-airline company have/must have deposited the amount of tax and if the AO starts disputing such position or directs the respondent

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

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

69,000/- for amount deposited last year. The nature of these transactions were not very clear and, therefore, the assessee was asked to explain why the capital introduction not explained be not treated as unexplained cash credit to the extent of Rs.83,00,000/- + Rs.87,00,000/-, total Rs. 1,70,00,000/- for the Assessment Year (hereafter referred

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

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

SRI PAVAN KUMAR AGARWAL vs. DY. CIT, NIZAMABAD.

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

68 '/Hvd/2000 for rhe assessmenr ycar 1\D,S 97 3. I'hougT tfLis appeal was admitred on 14.01.2006, no substanual c :e stron olt law was framed. I Iowever., apf,ellant has propose L the Fcrllowing questlons in thc rnemo of zLppeal as substantia questions of law: I I I ' I I I : 't (i) NThether on the tacrs

The Commissioner of Income TAx-IV, vs. M/s. Mahaveer Enterprises (India) Limited

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

section (1), the competent authority shall determine the nature and extent of such claims and pass such orders as it deems fit. (3) At any time after the publication of the notification under sub-section (1) the competent authority may, by notification published in the Official Gazette of the State concerned, declare that the excess vacant land referred