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

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Jayalakshmi Chits

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2,01,250 19.2.92 40.25 9,80,000 16.1.92 Rs.4,43,750/­ c) 30,000 12,22,500 19.2.92 40.75 28 L & T 19,45,000 18.2.92 a) 10,000 194.50 21,30,000 b) 5,000 9,35,000 19.2.92 187.00 21.1.92 142.00 Rs.7,50,000/­ Total LossRs.16,88,250/­ 8.2. The   Assessing   Officer   after   verification  found that

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S Gulf Oil Corporation Pvt. Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2,01,250 19.2.92 40.25 9,80,000 16.1.92 Rs.4,43,750/­ c) 30,000 12,22,500 19.2.92 40.75 28 L & T 19,45,000 18.2.92 a) 10,000 194.50 21,30,000 b) 5,000 9,35,000 19.2.92 187.00 21.1.92 142.00 Rs.7,50,000/­ Total LossRs.16,88,250/­ 8.2. The   Assessing   Officer   after   verification  found that

The Commissioner of Income Tax - VI vs. M/s. Manikanta Iron AND Hardware

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2,01,250 19.2.92 40.25 9,80,000 16.1.92 Rs.4,43,750/­ c) 30,000 12,22,500 19.2.92 40.75 28 L & T 19,45,000 18.2.92 a) 10,000 194.50 21,30,000 b) 5,000 9,35,000 19.2.92 187.00 21.1.92 142.00 Rs.7,50,000/­ Total LossRs.16,88,250/­ 8.2. The   Assessing   Officer   after   verification  found that

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

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Atyam Suryanarayana

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 5Th February 2024. Appearance: Mr. Om Narayan Rai, Advocate Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate …For The Appellant. 1. Heard Sri Om Narayan Rai, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Appellant. None Appears For The Respondent Assessee. 2. Affidavit Of Service Filed Today By Learned Counsel For The Appellant, In Compliance Of The Orders Dated 17.02.2023 & 15.01.2024, Is Taken On Record. Service Of Notice Upon The Respondent Assessee Is Found To Be Sufficient. 3. This Appeal Was Admitted By Order Of This Court Dated 03.09.2010, On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law:- “I) Whether The Learned Tribunal Was Justified On The Facts & Circumstances Of This Case To Follow The Ratio Decided By The

9. The entire submission of learned counsel for the appellant is with regard to the applicability of Section 68 of the Act 1961 on facts of the present case. Therefore, before proceeding to consider the submission, it would be appropriate to reproduce Section 68 of the Act 1961, as then existed, as under:- “68. Where

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

9. We also bear in consideration the submission of the respondents who contend that the scheme of sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 17 clearly suggests that a reassessment has already been undertaken and completed by the proper officer and which establishes the incorrectness of the self-declaration being a precursor to the importer submitting the concession

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

9. We also bear in consideration the submission of the respondents who contend that the scheme of sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 17 clearly suggests that a reassessment has already been undertaken and completed by the proper officer and which establishes the incorrectness of the self-declaration being a precursor to the importer submitting the concession

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

2) was issued by Income Tax Officer-2(1), Raipur, which was duly served on the appellant/assessee on 22.8.2013. Ultimately, on 30.3.2015, assessment order under Section 143(3) of 4/9 (Tax Case No. 63 of 2022) the Act was passed by the A.O. re-computing the income of the appellant/assessee at Rs.34,02,650/- after making addition of Rs.24

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-S. 100(4) and S. 217(2

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

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

The appeal is allowed

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

9, with his signature specifically identified as Exhibit 9/1. xiii. During the interrogation phase, PW-4 clarified that the accused individual served within the stated post office in a capacity designated as Group ‘D’ staff. Additionally, PW-4 emphasized the limitations inherent in the duties of a Group ‘D’ staff, stipulating their inability to process applications for the inclusion

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

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed

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

9 SCC 232 36. (1985) 3 SCC 314 37. (1999) 5 SCC 138 38. (1986) 2 SCC 512 39. AIR 1950 SC 27 40. (1969) 1 SCR 219 41. (1980) 1 SCC 158 42. (2010) 10 SCC 744 43. (1928) 1 KB 561 44. (1888) 13 A.C. 603 45. (2005) 4 SCC 530 46. (1951) 2

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

2 of 21 present petition under Section 9(ii)(b) of the Act being O.M.P. (I) (COMM) 523/2017 seeking to secure the entire amount awarded to it under the Award. On 14.12.2017, the Court issued notice in this petition and directed the petitioner to file an affidavit detailing its assets (moveable/immovable), bank accounts and the amounts lying

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 2

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68, section 69 and section 70 passed by an authority empowered to do so under this Act not being an authority above the rank of an Assistant Commissioner may, within a period of thirty days from the date on which the order was served on him, appeal against such order, xxx xxx xxx (5) In disposing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/s. Murala Venkateswara Rao AND others

Appeal is dismissed,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

9 the respondent/accused officer with the offences alleged. He submits that in view of the inconsistent versions in the evidence of P.W1 with regard to demand Of bribe on earlier occasions, it cannot be said that the earlier deniands are proved to be established beyond reasonable doubt. There is no legal evidence to prove either demand or acceptance