Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. The Andhra Petro Chemicals Limited

Section 68 of the State Universities Act, 1973. The representation submitted by him was rejected by the Chancellor vide order dated 19.05.2017. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Chancellor and has sought other reliefs also, which are extracted above. In his representation made to the Chancellor, petitioner contended that respondent

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed

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

80-HH and Section 84 of the Income Tax Act; the question whether construction of a dam amounted to either ‘manufacture’ or ‘production’ was examined; and, while holding that it did not, the Supreme Court held that ‘production’ had a wider connotation than the word ‘manufacture’; while every manufacture can be categorized as production, every production need not amount

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

68. It is pointed out that in the earlier years Gopal Das Bhawan was still under construction and the interest was capitalised only up to the stage of completion of the project under „capital work and progress.‟ The interest on the CC limit for the subsequent period, after completion of project, was rightly claimed and allowed as a revenue expense

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

68. It is pointed out that in the earlier years Gopal Das Bhawan was still under construction and the interest was capitalised only up to the stage of completion of the project under „capital work and progress.‟ The interest on the CC limit for the subsequent period, after completion of project, was rightly claimed and allowed as a revenue expense

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

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

COMMR.OF I.T. A.P.I HYD vs. DIAMOND HATCHERIES (P) LTD

Appeal is allowed

68 of 2001 Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana ...Appellant Versus M/s Highway Cycle Industries Ltd., Ludhiana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should

THEE COMMSSR.OF INCOME TAX.HYD. vs. CHALLA SHANKER REDDY.HYD.

Bench: L.NARASIMHA REDDY,T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

80,77 &,81 of 2OO2l on 27 '06'2001 challenging the common judgment dated 23.O2-2OO| 37. On 17.11.2005, the respondent Nos' f io 4 it C'C C'A'No' 12O of 2O13 hled a Suit (O.S'No' 115 of 2006) before the learned XIII Additional Chief Judge (F-fc), City Civil Court, Hyderabad' against the appellants seeking

COMMR.OF I.T. RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/S.NARAYANA CHOWDARYAND ORS KAKINADA

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

80,77 &,81 of 2OO2l on 27 '06'2001 challenging the common judgment dated 23.O2-2OO| 37. On 17.11.2005, the respondent Nos' f io 4 it C'C C'A'No' 12O of 2O13 hled a Suit (O.S'No' 115 of 2006) before the learned XIII Additional Chief Judge (F-fc), City Civil Court, Hyderabad' against the appellants seeking

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - (TDS), vs. M/s. Suman Chit Funds (P) Ltd.,

80,77 &,81 of 2OO2l on 27 '06'2001 challenging the common judgment dated 23.O2-2OO| 37. On 17.11.2005, the respondent Nos' f io 4 it C'C C'A'No' 12O of 2O13 hled a Suit (O.S'No' 115 of 2006) before the learned XIII Additional Chief Judge (F-fc), City Civil Court, Hyderabad' against the appellants seeking

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 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

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

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s Indur Green Power Private Limited

In the result, all the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 2(15) of the Act?. 44. We are dealing with a taxing statute. The intention of the legislature in a taxation statute is to be gathered from the language of the provisions particularly where the language is plain and unambiguous. In a Taxing Act, it is not possible to assume any intention or the governing purpose

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. 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