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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68 / 79 CRA-322-08gr any letter to defendant no.1 or her husband or DW 1 Mangaldas about the same. He denied that there was no agreement of leave and licence of 1968. In the agreement of 1968, Rs.2000 was shown as deposit amount. He paid that amount by cash. He, however, does not have document to show that

M/S NMDC LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed

Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

68 of 2016 so far, the annulment of marriage between the parties under Section 12(1) (C) is concerned, is hereby affirmed. 71. Now coming to the issue of permanent alimony which is the subject matter in the F.A.No. 213 of 2019. It has been contended by the appellant/ wife that the permanent alimony as determined by the learned

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed

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

90 49. As these oleo-resins are classified in Chapter 13, under Section II of the First schedule to the Tariff Act which relates to vegetable products, they are all natural produce, and may not involve a process of manufacture where a new commodity comes into existence. 64. Accepting the submission urged on behalf of the respondent-writ petitioner

M/s. Kausalya Shelters Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 34 Petition. B. FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL ON ISSUE NO. 2 AND ISSUE NO. 7 VIZ. WHETHER THE SUB-LEASE DEED DATED NOVEMBER 06, 2018 WAS VALIDLY TERMINATED BY THE PETITIONER 57. Qua these issues, it was observed by the Tribunal that since the respondent had already validly terminated the sub-lease deed, which had taken effect

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

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 313 Cr.P.C is sufficient proof of the plea of the accused

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Hycons Infrastructure (India) Ltd.

The appeals are dismissed

68 74 33 4. Tyres 118 73 191 62 39 5. Cosmetics 170 33 203 84 53 6. Misc. Chemicals 266 28 294 90 31 7. Soap Detergent 117 73 190 64 47 8. Article of plastic 48 12 60 80 22 9. DG sets 15 24 39 39 29 10. Medicines 132 27 159 83 26 Total

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

68. It is pointed out that in the earlier years Gopal Das Bhawan was still under construction and the interest was capitalised only up to the stage of completion of the project under „capital work and progress.‟ The interest on the CC limit for the subsequent period, after completion of project, was rightly claimed and allowed as a revenue expense

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

68. It is pointed out that in the earlier years Gopal Das Bhawan was still under construction and the interest was capitalised only up to the stage of completion of the project under „capital work and progress.‟ The interest on the CC limit for the subsequent period, after completion of project, was rightly claimed and allowed as a revenue expense

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

Section 166 of the Act came to be filed by the claimant through his power attorney holder Chaudhari Hareshkumar Lavjibhai and Page 2 of 10 C/FA/4881/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/12/2021 claimed compensation of Rs. 90,00,000/-. 2.2 The claimant has deposed at exhibit 58. The owner of the ST bus had given his written statement at exhibit 44A. Various

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Shri Raaj Kumar Jain

90 2 Written Report Ext.Ka 4 3 Recovery memo of Human Skull and Bone dt. 29.12.06 Ext.Ka 20 4 Recovery memo of Knife dt. 29.12.06 Ext.Ka 35 5 Recovery memo of Goods dt. 5.1.06 Ext.Ka 49 6 Recovery memo of Bone and Cloth dt. 6.1.06 Ext.Ka 51 7 Recovery memo of Human Bone dt. 31.12.06 Ext.Ka 24 8 Recovery memo

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

The appeal is disposed of

Section 263 of the Act firstly, the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and secondly, that it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on account of error in the order of assessment. 8. The aforesaid provision was considered by the Supreme Court in MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD.I supra and it was held that the phrase ‘prejudicial

THE COMM. OF INCOME TAX RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/S B.KRISHNA MURTHY AND OTHERS

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

68. The presence of SK at MCD Office is also strengthened by the fact that his driving license (DL) was found there. This is spoken to by ASI CB Upadhyay (PW-6). It must, however, be noted that the prosecution case is that DW-1 handed over to the police the DL of SK. However, this is denied

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

The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Vaishnavi Educational Society

In the result, this Cross Objection is allowed and the suit is

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68. In addition, when Sri.Rafi, as DW2, was specifically asked about the details of the plaint schedule properties purchased by him RFA 554/15 & CON. CASES 54 through the Sale Deeds, he was unable to offer proper answers, as are evident from pages 5, 6, 7, 27, 28 and 29 of his deposition; nor did he know about a shed bearing