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

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

3) r.w.s. 147. Copy of the order along with D.N. & Ch. Etc. have been handed over to Shri D.C. Agrawal for affecting the service upon the assessee. 61. The records of the proceedings clearly shows that the AO was taking instructions on each and every hearing and dictates was clearly given to him. 62. That, even more interesting account

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

3) r.w.s. 147. Copy of the order along with D.N. & Ch. Etc. have been handed over to Shri D.C. Agrawal for affecting the service upon the assessee. 61. The records of the proceedings clearly shows that the AO was taking instructions on each and every hearing and dictates was clearly given to him. 62. That, even more interesting account

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

3) r.w.s. 147. Copy of the order along with D.N. & Ch. Etc. have been handed over to Shri D.C. Agrawal for affecting the service upon the assessee. 61. The records of the proceedings clearly shows that the AO was taking instructions on each and every hearing and dictates was clearly given to him. 62. That, even more interesting account

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

M/s. Canara Securities Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO,T.AMARNATH GOUD

68 of Schedule 1, Table F gives them such power. The share holders can pass resolutions by majority as Section 114 of the Companies Act gives such power. In terms of Sections 29 and 31(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Joint Arbitrators can pass awards by majority. Under Section 17(3) of the Waqf

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Hyderabad House Pvt Ltd.,

68. Since in the claims arising out of death of children, generally speaking, (non-earning hands), the income is to be notionally assumed on the basis of the second schedule to the MV Act, the general practice MAC App. Nos. 554/2010 & conn. Page 52 of 70 of deduction of one-half (50%) towards personal & living expenses, as applied in case

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

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

Section 2(15) of the Act?. 44. We are dealing with a taxing statute. The intention of the legislature in a taxation statute is to be gathered from the language of the provisions particularly where the language is plain and unambiguous. In a Taxing Act, it is not possible to assume any intention or the governing purpose

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

92 (Ker) . (iii) Section 28 (11) would be applicable only in respect of short-levy or non-levy or erroneous refund arising on or after 8th April 2011. It is submitted that the new Section 28 substitutes the previous Section 28 of the Act with effect from 8th April 2011. Therefore, Section 28 (11) would also

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

3 is not applicable and transaction value is determined in terms of Rules 4 to 9 of the 2007 Rules. 16.6. The proper officer can raise doubts as to the truth or accuracy Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:27.11.2024 18:20:25 Signature Not Verified CUSAA 26/2022 & connected matters Page 50 of 137 of the declared value

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

3 is not applicable and transaction value is determined in terms of Rules 4 to 9 of the 2007 Rules. 16.6. The proper officer can raise doubts as to the truth or accuracy Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:27.11.2024 18:20:25 Signature Not Verified CUSAA 26/2022 & connected matters Page 50 of 137 of the declared value

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

68 11.01.07 Following FIRS are re-registered by the CBI. The accused are taken into CBI custody. Victim RC No. 2(S)/07/SCB/DLI 'A' RC No. 3(S)/07/SCB/DLI 'B' RC No. 6(S)/07/SCB/DLI 'C' RC No. 5(S)/07/SCB/DLI 'D' RC No. 9(S)/07/SCB/DLI 'E' RC No. 7(S)/07/SCB/DLI 'F' RC No. 8(S)/07/SCB/DLI

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. K. V. Srinivasa Rao

Section 145 of the Evidence Act. If a contradiction is put to the witness and it is denied by him, then his attention has to be drawn to the statement made by such witness before the Police or any other previous statement and he must be given a reasonable opportunity to explain as to why such contradiction appears

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

The appeal is allowed

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

3 also noted that the post-trap formalities were observed by PW-6. xii. PW-4, acting as the Superintendent of South Nadia at Kalyani Bidhan Park Post Office, affirmed his authority to approve the initiation of legal action against a staff member categorized as Group ‘D’ within the mentioned post office. The authorization document dated 27.3.1997, issued

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

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

68,514.00 2. Rs.1,44,00,000 18.12.99 18.12.99 – 31.5.01 @ 1% p.m. for 18 months 1.6.01 – 31.5.02 @ 0.75% p.m. for 12 months 1.6.02 – 31.8.04 @ 2/3% p.m. for 27 months Rs.25,92,000.00 Rs.12,96,000.00 Rs.25,66,080.00 3. Rs. 37,08,667 29.01.2000 29.1.2000 – 31.5.01 @ 1% p.m. for 5 months 1.6.01 – 31.5.02 @ 0.75% p.m. for 12 months

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

THEE COMMSSR.OF INCOME TAX.HYD. vs. CHALLA SHANKER REDDY.HYD.

Bench: L.NARASIMHA REDDY,T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

section 92 in The Indian Evidence Act' 1872 I would also be relevant in this context since it provides for invalidation of a document including for failure of consideration' I ! The "Round-TtiPP ins" done bv the appellant No.2 (C.V. Rao) and others 64.LearnedSeniorCounselfortherespondentshasgivena I painstaking account of the manner in which tnelfunas were routed by the appellant No.2/C.V

COMMR.OF I.T. RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/S.NARAYANA CHOWDARYAND ORS KAKINADA

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

section 92 in The Indian Evidence Act' 1872 I would also be relevant in this context since it provides for invalidation of a document including for failure of consideration' I ! The "Round-TtiPP ins" done bv the appellant No.2 (C.V. Rao) and others 64.LearnedSeniorCounselfortherespondentshasgivena I painstaking account of the manner in which tnelfunas were routed by the appellant No.2/C.V