Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), vs. M/s Country Club Inda Limited

9(1)(i) of the Act postulates the principle of apportionment and only such income that can be reasonably attributed to operations in India would be chargeable to tax under the Act. The position in Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries (supra) was also similar. There too, the equipments were supplied overseas and the contractor continued to retain control of equipment

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Sri Ch.Govardhan Naidu

The appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

Section 68 of the Act stood discharged by the Assessee.” 1 Tax Case No.24 of 2011, decided on 4.4.2017. 7/9 (Tax Case No. 63 of 2022) 9

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

9) of section 44, section 49, section 67, section 68, section 69 and section

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Hyderabad vs. M/s. Vasant Intermediates Private Limited

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Ashok S. Kinagi

9. Point No.1: It is the case of the plaintiffs that Muniswamiappa @ Ammojappa as well as his four sons namely Munipapaiah, Ramaiah, Muniappa and Venkataswamy constitute an undivided Hindu joint family and they were having substantial movable and 20 immovable properties which were joint in nature. The said Muniswamiappa died on 03.09.1935. After the demise of Muniswamiappa, there were serious

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Sri B.Ramanarayanba Rao

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 12Th December, 2023 Appearance: Ms. Anupa Banerjee, Adv. …For The Appellant. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. ...For The Respondent. 1. Supplementary Paper Book Filed Today By The Assessee Is Taken On Record. 2. Heard Ms. Anupa Banerjee, Learned Counsel For The Appellant/Assessee & Mr. Amit Sharma, Learned Standing Counsel For The Respondent/Income Tax Department. Facts: 3. Briefly Stated Facts Of The Present Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In Trading (Export & Domestic) Of

68 of the Act, 1961. 8. Aggrieved with the order of the ITAT, the assessee filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Act, 1961. It is stated by learned counsel for the respondent that the Income Tax Department has not filed any appeal against the impugned order of the Tribunal. Submission on behalf of the Appellant/Assessee

A.P.State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited vs. The Income tax Officer

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

68 of the Evidence Act?” FAO No. 327/2007 Page 9 of 12 21. While replying the first question, the Apex Court has observed:- “Question-1: 9. 'Will' and 'codicil' are defined respectively in Clauses (h) and (b) of Section

THE APR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. SHRI TUMMALA SRI RAM BABU

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Section 9 of the Act was directed to be listed alongwith O.M.P (COMM) 432/2017. Both the petitions were taken up together on 19.12.2019. Order was reserved in the present petition while O.M.P(COMM) 432/2017 was directed to be listed on 23.03.2020, as the order in that petition was dependent on the outcome of the present petition

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.Visakha Industries Ltd

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 68 will be attracted only when the assessee offers no explanation or the explanation so offered is not satisfactory to the Assessing Officer. It was found that in the present case assessee had established the identity of the creditor, the source for the credit and the genuineness of the transaction and had thereby discharged the initial burden

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 share application money as raised in the grounds of appeal ITA Nos.547/2013 & other connected matters Page 9

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 share application money as raised in the grounds of appeal ITA Nos.547/2013 & other connected matters Page 9

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Dr.Kodela Siva Prasada Rao

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 68 cannot be invoked. 9. Aggrieved thereby, the Revenue has filed the present appeal before this Court. 10. Heard

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

Commissioner of Incometax-1, Hyderabad vs. M/s. Divis Laboratories Ltd.,

The appeals are allowed

Section 68(2) of VDIS, 1997 had been issued to the Assessee is recorded in the order dt. 10.03.2000 passed by the CIT(Appeals) and also in the subsequent order passed by ITAT on 17.08.2004.Therefore, the issuance of the said certificate to the Assessee cannot be doubted. 9

SRS AND Sri Sai Ganesh Productions vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Central)

Sections 68, 69 and 69A. In fact, the said assessment orders produced along with the records clearly indicate that the officer had conducted enquiries and found that there was no evidence of assets acquired by the said agent; using the amounts that came into similar accounts maintained by that assessee. In the present case, the Assessing Officer

Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. M/S Sri Ramanjaneya Poultry Farm Pvt., Ltd.,

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

Section 245(D)(6) of the Income Tax Act vide Order dated 20.9.2005. It is this order which crystallized/assessed the amount payable by the plaintiff to the defendants and the amounts; including CS(OS) No.713/2006 Page 9 of 14 interest; which were to be refunded by the defendants to the plaintiff. Since this entire order would be relevant

Commissioner of Income Tax-V, vs. M/s.Sirveen Control Systems

Appeal is partly allowed

9 SCC 451 for the proposition that property of a Hindu woman would be her personal property and cannot be treated as part of joint family property, by referring to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act. He also relied upon the decision in Gangamma etc., Vs. G. Nagarathnamma and others reported

EVEREST ORGANICS LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF I.T., HYDERABAD

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

9 & 14 of FERA. 9.3.96: Shri D.C.Agrawal, Addl.DIT (inv.) telephonically contacted at his residence No. and apprised of the contents of the letters filed by the assessee on 8.3.96. He comminuted that the copies of these letters be forwarded to him by FAX. 11.3.96: As desired, the copies of assessee's reply have been transmitted through FAX to the Directorate

C. SANYASI RAJU vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIZAG.

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

9 & 14 of FERA. 9.3.96: Shri D.C.Agrawal, Addl.DIT (inv.) telephonically contacted at his residence No. and apprised of the contents of the letters filed by the assessee on 8.3.96. He comminuted that the copies of these letters be forwarded to him by FAX. 11.3.96: As desired, the copies of assessee's reply have been transmitted through FAX to the Directorate