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

79(b) of Land Reforms Act? 3. Can there be a declaration that the sale deed with respect to property which has vested in the Government by virtue of Act 19 of 1996 valid? 4. Can there e a declaration when no consequential relief is prayed for in the light of Section 344 of Specific Relief

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- 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 COMMI.OF INCOME TAX,HYD. vs. VAIBHAV

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

68 of the Act as "Income from other sources". Thus, by the assessment order dated 30.03.2000 passed under Section 1a3(3) of the Act, the aforesaid addidons were made to the total income of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the above order of the assessment, assessee preferred first appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V (C-entral

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

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

79,424.00 10. The A.O. also proposed to estimate the assessee's income at Rs.4,00,000.00 in addition to the above deposits in absence of furnishing return of income. In response thereto, the authorized representative of the assessee filed a letter dated 28th November, 2006 furnishing therewith a copy of the acknowledgment of the return filed in ward

SYED ABBAS MIAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-I,KURNOOL

68. Interim order passed by the Appeal Court on July 31, 2013 had permitted the assessment under the Entry Tax Act, 2012 to be continued. It had also restrained refund of the tax already collected. Appeal Court did not vacate the stay granted by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgement and order. Appeal Court had regulated the implementation

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX vs. M/S V.SATAYANARAYANA

The appeal is allowed

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

Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act as they stood prior to the amendment made by the Act 16 of 2018 with effect from 26th July 2018. We are referring to Sections 7 and 18 2023 SCC Online SC 280 60 13 as they stood on the date of commission of the offence. Section

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

Section 271(1)(c). The penalty of Rs. 99,68,280/-imposed by the AO for A. Y. 1995-1996 is therefore ordered to be deleted.” 8. The above finding of Id. CIT(A), in our considered view does not suffer from any infirmity. The Id. CIT(A) has considered the issue in right prespective. The Id.CIT

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

68. Submission is that the prompt report of the incident by the accused persons naming the assailants therein, who are prosecution witnesses herein and the injury reports of the accused appellants proved by the doctor examined as P.W-4, in addition to the defence taken by them under Section 313 Cr.P.C is sufficient proof of the plea of the accused

M/S NMDC LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed

Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

68 of 2016 so far, the annulment of marriage between the parties under Section 12(1) (C) is concerned, is hereby affirmed. 71. Now coming to the issue of permanent alimony which is the subject matter in the F.A.No. 213 of 2019. It has been contended by the appellant/ wife that the permanent alimony as determined by the learned

Sunil Kumar Ahuja vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

79,100/-. e, the assessment order was e o - n f e e i e . s VARINDER SINGH 2024.10.24 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment ITA No passed unde ` 5,77,68,34 appeal befor who vide his assessee file dated 23.09.2 3. incorrect in assessee, wh the assessee. Section

Dr.D. Siva Sankara Rao-HUF vs. I.T.O. Ward-2, Eluru

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

68 of 171 with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav Kumar, Advocates for DDA + LA.APP. 256/2017 POOJA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar

P.V.S.Raju vs. The Addl. C.I.T.

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

68 of 171 with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav Kumar, Advocates for DDA + LA.APP. 256/2017 POOJA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar

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

68, From reading of the above decisions of the courts, it is clear that the scope of judicial review under Section 34 of the Act with the arbitral award is narrow and limited and cannot be equated with appellate jurisdiction. This court in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction is not expected to re-appreciate evidence for arriving

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

68. Though, it may not be appropriate to comment on this aspect, but it cannot be overlooked that no business person would give a commission in 2003 for the business and the profits that may accrue in the future. The contents of the Letter need to be proved through evidence especially in the light of denial of its contents