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

The appeal is allowed

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

vii. Upon completion of the transaction, PW-2 signaled the C.B.I. officers by rubbing his face with a handkerchief, prompting the apprehension of the appellant, who confessed to his wrongdoing. The appellant was directed to present the aforementioned notes and wash his hands, resulting in the solution turning pink. Subsequently, the solution was sealed in a bottle, along with

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed

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

VII to plastics and articles thereof, and rubber and articles thereof. While Section I contains Chapters 1 to 3, Section II is from Chapters 4 to 14, Section III contains Chapter 15, Section IV is from Chapters 16 to 24, Section V is from Chapters 25 to 27 and Section VI is from Chapters

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- 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

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 by CBI as containing 258 pages. xi) SET - XI - Containing

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

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

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 by CBI as containing 258 pages. xi) SET - XI - Containing

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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 by CBI as containing 258 pages. xi) SET - XI - Containing

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

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 by CBI as containing 258 pages. xi) SET - XI - Containing

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

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

VII. The Liability of the members is limited. VIII. The Authorized Share Capital of the company will consist of Rs.1.00.00.000/-(Rupees One Crore only) divided into 10,00,000 (Ten Lacs.) Equity shares of Rs. 10/-(Rupees Ten only) each. IX. True accounts shall be kept of all sums of money received and expended by the Company and the matters

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

VII deals with the Appeals, Revisions, and Settlement of cases under the Act. Right of appeal is a statutory remedy and is inherent in a OT.REV 212/2015 -23- litigant to file appeal. The Act provides the right of appeal, the forum of appeal, and the procedure to be followed by the Appellate Authority. According to him, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals

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 Income Tax-II vs. Energy Solutions International India Pvt Ltd.,

Bench: J. UMA DEVI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

9 - ITA No. 383 of 2016 (7) of Section 260A states that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 relating to appeals to the High Court, as far as may be, apply to these appeals. This Section is analogous to Section 100 of CPC. Noticeably, both these Sections i.e., Section 260A

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

Gland Celsus Bio Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income- tax

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement as well are fully satisfied in present case "? 3. 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's order is perverse in nature in ignoring the various clauses of the Agreement which signified that the overseas entity through the employees rendered

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S. SIVARAMA REDDY

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

vii) On March 10, 2016, the Notification dated February 19, 2016 stood rescinded. It is noted that the rescinding order had been issued within 25 days from the issuance of the original Notification. Relevant extract of the Notification issuing the rescinding order reads as under: “And further in exercise of the powers conferred by sub sections