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

The appeal is allowed

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

vi. A pre-trap plan was formulated by C.B.I. officers, documented in a memorandum bearing PW-2's signature as Exhibits 7/1 and 7/2. They proceeded to Kalyani where they met another witness, PW-1, involved in this entrapment. Subsequently, PW-2 proceeded to the site of the incident, the aforementioned post office, where the appellant demanded the agreed-upon

M/S. GAUTAMI POWER LIMITED vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

68-C of the old Act, pending on the date of enforcement of the new Act, namely, 1.7.1989, • the period of one year as prescribed under S. 100(4) should be computed from the date of commencement of the new Act. This interpretation would give full effect to • both. the Sections

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s. BDR Projects Pvt. Ltd.

9) The proper officer shall determine the amount of duty or interest under sub-section (8),- (a) within six months from the date of notice in respect of cases falling under clause (a) of sub- section (1); (b) within one year from the date of notice in respect of cases falling under sub-section

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

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed

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

68 upon the said ammonium nitrate, fell upon the appellants, and they were affected thereby; reclassification of ammonium nitrate cast an obligation on the appellants to pay excise duty, that was leviable as a result; such an obligation did not arise merely by reason of an agreement between SAIL and the appellants, but also by virtue of the provisions

Commissioner of Income Tax- IT and TP vs. M/s. Louis Berger International Inc.,

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

68, on the date on which [a bill of entry for home consumption in respect of such goods is presented under that section]; (c) in the case of any other goods, on the date of payment of duty: [PROVIDED that if a bill of entry has been presented before the date of entry inwards of the vessel

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s. Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

68, on the date on which [a bill of entry for home consumption in respect of such goods is presented under that section]; (c) in the case of any other goods, on the date of payment of duty: [PROVIDED that if a bill of entry has been presented before the date of entry inwards of the vessel

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

VI - Titled as MR - 73/91 having 50 pages. vii)SET - VII - Titled as MR - 67/91 containing 11 pages representing ledger account of BECO, S.K. Jain. viii) SET - VIII - copy of account of petition files before settlement commission by Shri J.K. Jain having 12 pages. ix) SET - IX - report from CBI having 117 pages. x) SET - X - Statement of accused recorded

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

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

VI - Titled as MR - 73/91 having 50 pages. vii)SET - VII - Titled as MR - 67/91 containing 11 pages representing ledger account of BECO, S.K. Jain. viii) SET - VIII - copy of account of petition files before settlement commission by Shri J.K. Jain having 12 pages. ix) SET - IX - report from CBI having 117 pages. x) SET - X - Statement of accused recorded

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.Samrakshna Electricals Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

VI - Titled as MR - 73/91 having 50 pages. vii)SET - VII - Titled as MR - 67/91 containing 11 pages representing ledger account of BECO, S.K. Jain. viii) SET - VIII - copy of account of petition files before settlement commission by Shri J.K. Jain having 12 pages. ix) SET - IX - report from CBI having 117 pages. x) SET - X - Statement of accused recorded

M/s.GVK Petro Chemicals Private Limited,(Novo Resins AND vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,

VI - Titled as MR - 73/91 having 50 pages. vii)SET - VII - Titled as MR - 67/91 containing 11 pages representing ledger account of BECO, S.K. Jain. viii) SET - VIII - copy of account of petition files before settlement commission by Shri J.K. Jain having 12 pages. ix) SET - IX - report from CBI having 117 pages. x) SET - X - Statement of accused recorded

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 4(2)(c) of the Rules, 2015 provides for a certificate from the Village Officer concerned to the effect that the land in respect of which quarrying permit is applied for, is not assigned for any special purpose by the department of Land Revenue. Rule 27 of the Rules, 2015 deals with an application for grant or renewal

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

Paro Food Products, vs. Commissioner of Income Tax -VI

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

vi) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the penalty under Section 271(1)(c)of the Act of Rs.26,42,500/- when the said penalty is neither legally tenable nor factually permissible in law and consequently passed a perverse order under the facts and circumstances of the case? 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal

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

VI. No alteration shall be made to this Memorandum of Association or to the Articles of Association of the company which are for the time being enforced unless the alteration has been previously submitted to and approved by the Regional Director, Western Region, Department of Company Affairs, Mumbai. VII. The Liability of the members is limited. VIII. The Authorized Share

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

68 of the Act for Assessment Years (AYs) 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. These amounts were primarily towards share application money received from various companies. The AO made additions/disallowance of Rs. 7,05,00,0001- on account of unexplained share capital/share application money received by the assessee company from Paradigm Hotel

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Adaptec [India] Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

68 of the Act for Assessment Years (AYs) 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. These amounts were primarily towards share application money received from various companies. The AO made additions/disallowance of Rs. 7,05,00,0001- on account of unexplained share capital/share application money received by the assessee company from Paradigm Hotel

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

68. Thus, the matter remains in the suspended animation insofar as Sub-Registrar and District Registrar are concerned and the Civil court has to dispose of the suit. The Hon’ble Apex court has observed that “the Sub-Registrar is required to satisfy himself with the due execution of the document.” 69. The direction was given to the trial court