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

83 of 300 APLs to act by majority is contrary to law and to the order of appointment of the APLs. 23. It is submitted that the decision of two of the APLs to re-investigate into the extent of the estate and percentage of share holding is beyond their authority and contrary to the unanimous inventory report

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

83,277/-, Rs.1,70,00,000/-, Rs.50,579/- and Rs.1,09,00,000/- made by the CIT?" 2. The Commissioner, Income Tax, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as 'C.I.T.') issued a show-cause notice under Section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') to the assessee on 09.08.2012 on the ground that the assessment order passed

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

83 to substantiate the above submission. 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

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

83 (SC) which is relevant to A. Y. 1996-97, the Apex Court has held that prior to the amendment made to section 271(1) (c) by the Finance Act 2002, which came into operation on 01.04.2003, no penalty for concealment could be imposed unless some tax was payable by the assessee, then the question of imposition of penalty

The Commissioner of Income -Tax - III, vs. Shri Taher Ali

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

83. In the cross examination, he deposed that he was in service of one Vallabhdas K. Palan from 1961 to 1971. He denied that he had not taken the suit premises on leave and licence 67 / 79 CRA-322-08gr basis in the year 1968. He denied that he was employed as Manager of defendant no.1 in the year

Commissioner of Income Tax [TDS] vs. Sri VAraha Laxmi Nrusimha Swamy DEvastanam

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943 WA NO. 518 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 895/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE PROVINCIAL SUPERIOR, CARMALITE PROVINCIAL HOUSE CMC CONGREGATION, PALA

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Swapna Lahari Pvt Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943 WA NO. 518 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 895/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE PROVINCIAL SUPERIOR, CARMALITE PROVINCIAL HOUSE CMC CONGREGATION, PALA

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Smt G Sailaja

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943 WA NO. 518 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 895/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE PROVINCIAL SUPERIOR, CARMALITE PROVINCIAL HOUSE CMC CONGREGATION, PALA

Commissioner of Income TAx-II, Hyderabad vs. M/s. Sri Balaji Bio MAss Power Pvt. Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943 WA NO. 518 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 895/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE PROVINCIAL SUPERIOR, CARMALITE PROVINCIAL HOUSE CMC CONGREGATION, PALA

The Commissioner of Income Tax -1 vs. Harmahendar Singh Bagga

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943 WA NO. 518 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 895/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE PROVINCIAL SUPERIOR, CARMALITE PROVINCIAL HOUSE CMC CONGREGATION, PALA

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. The Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943 WA NO. 518 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 895/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE PROVINCIAL SUPERIOR, CARMALITE PROVINCIAL HOUSE CMC CONGREGATION, PALA

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. Maruthi Movies vs. Income Tax Officer

Bench: This Court & Making The Same A Rule Of Court, Alongwith Decree Against Respondents Awarding Rs.5,35,920/- Paid By The Petitioner To The Arbitrator As Their Share Of Fees As Per Order Dated 21.12.2010. 2. Respondent No.1 Has Filed Its Objections To The Award Under Section 30 & 33 Of The Act In Form Of I.A. No.9067/2011. Respondent No.2 Has Also Filed Its Objections To The Award.

68. As noted hereinabove, in terms of the agreement the plaintiff is to provide “a suitable alternate accommodation” to the respondent no. 2 and 3 in the preferred localities. It is already noticed hereinabove that there was a major dispute between the parties with respect to the availability of such suitable alternate accommodation. In any case, what such suitable alternate

The Commissioner of Income Tax I vs. M/s. Bhagiradha Chemicals AND Industries Ltd.,

The appeal is disposed of

68,953/- under normal provisions and book- profit of Rs.9,85,25,142/-. Tax was payable on book profits as per Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short). The aforementioned return was taken up for scrutiny and additions of Rs.1,00,500/- and Rs.1,17,141/- on substantive basis, and Rs.10 lacs on protective basis

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Margadarshi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd.,

The appeal is dismissed

68 taxmann.com 334 wherein on ITA-228-2013 2023:PHHC:047619-DB 4 24.07.2009, a search was conducted and notice under Section 148 was issued to the appellant . In response to this notice, the assessee filed its return. However, the assessee did not produce supporting vouchers for expenses, details of purchases and stocks and copies of partners’ bank accounts