Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [TDS] vs. M/s.KCIL-MEIL [JV]

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68, section 69 and section 70 passed by an authority empowered to do so under this Act not being

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

70,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act for the A.Y. under consideration. As regards

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

70,45,911/-, which in the order section 143(3) was determined at depreciation loss of Rs. 114,47,28,440/-. The same was subsequently revised under section 154 at a loss of Rs. 114,46,13,711/- and further recomputed at Rs. 116,30,34,284/- after appeal effect . In another words the assessed figure

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 - 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

68. In Pine Chemicals Ltd. (supra) the government order No. 159 provided for exemption and read as under: "Sanction is accorded to the grant of the following incentives and facilities to Large and Medium Scale Industries in the State of Jammu & Kashmir. (2) Grant of exemption from the State Sales tax both on raw materials and finished products

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Energy Solutions International India Pvt Ltd.,

Bench: J. UMA DEVI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

70,68,28,574/- allegedly paid to ‘Transport Creditors’. During the course of Scrutiny Assessment Proceedings, the Assessment Officer (hereinafter ‘AO’) had asked the Assessee to furnish details of Transport Creditors to whom the payment was made. The Assessee expressed his inability to produce any documents contending that his entire business office having been raided all books files, registers

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 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

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

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

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

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

68. Since in the claims arising out of death of children, generally speaking, (non-earning hands), the income is to be notionally assumed on the basis of the second schedule to the MV Act, the general practice MAC App. Nos. 554/2010 & conn. Page 52 of 70 of deduction of one-half (50%) towards personal & living expenses, as applied in case

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

Appeal is hereby allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

70 Years 2. Ramkumar S/o Nityanand, Aged About 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

The Commissioner of Income Tax - VI vs. Sri Danda Dharanidhar

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68. Our conclusion in terms of the application of Section 194-H of the IT Act to the supplementary commission amounts earned by the travel agent is unequivocally in favour of the Revenue. Section 194- H is to be read with Section 182 of the Contract Act. If a relationship between two parties as culled out from

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 Prl. Commissioner of Income vs. The Tarun Kumar Goyal

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 3Rd January, 2023. Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mita, Adv. ..For Appellant Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Das, Adv. …For Respondent Re: Re: Ga/1/2022 The Court:- Heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, Learned Advocate For The Appellant & Ms. Swapna Das, Learned Advocate For The Respondent. There Is A Delay Of 370 Days In Filing The Appeal. We Have Perused The Affidavit Filed In Support Of The Condone Delay Petition & We Find Sufficient Cause Has Been Shown For Not Preferring The Appeal Within The Period Of Limitation. Hence, The Application Is Allowed & The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned.

section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] is directed against the order dated 15.3.2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata [Tribunal] in ITA No.686/Kol/2019 for the assessment year 2015-16. The revenue has raised the following substantial question of law for consideration : 2 1. WHETHER in the fact and the circumstances

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