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

96 C/TAXAP/627/2015 JUDGMENT to consider is whether having regard to the activities undertaken by the Company, could it be said that the Company is into “preservation of environment”. The assertion on the part of the assessee company is that it takes care of the liquid and solid industrial waste generated by the polluting industries by treating the same

Commissioner of Income Tax-V, vs. M/s.Sirveen Control Systems

Appeal is partly allowed

96 OF CPC,AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 05.08.2011 PASSED IN O.S.NO. 1838/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. THIS RFA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI V. HOSMANI J.,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T This appeal

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - (TDS), vs. M/s. Suman Chit Funds (P) Ltd.,

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

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

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

96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 68 of 300 Section 2(55) of the said Act that is a person

The Commissioner of Income - tax - I vs. AP State Warehousing Corporation Ltd.,

In the result, (i) A.S.(MD)No

Bench: The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court Date Of Reserving The Judgment Date Of Pronouncing The Judgment 08.10.2025 05.11.2025 Coram: The Honourable Mr.Justice C.V.Karthikeyan & The Honourable Mr.Justice R.Vijayakumar A.S.(Md)Nos.12 & 17 Of 2016 & C.M.P.(Md)Nos.854 Of 2016, 4032 & 4276 Of 2025 A.S.(Md)No.12 Of 2016

96 Civil Procedure Code against the common judgment and decree dated 22.12.2015 passed in O.S.No.130 of 2012, on the file of the District Court, Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil. 2/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)Nos.12 and 17 of 2016 For Appellant in both the Appeal Suits : Mr.M.Arjun Varman for Mr.S.Rajasekar For Respondent in both the Appeal Suits : Mr.V.K.Vijayaragavan COMMON

The Director of Income Tax [Exempetions] vs. Share India

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 96 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree dated 24- 12-2014 made in O.S.No.4 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the lV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, LB Nagar. Between: B. Chandra Reddy, S/o. Ram Reddy, Aged 63 years, Occ. Business, Fl/o. H.No. 2-5-1 12, Bharatnagar, Uppal Village and Mandal

Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

Section 96 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 04.02.201 1 passed in O.S.No. 2 of 1999 on the file of the lX Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Between: 1. SARANGA KRISHNA MURTHY (Died per LR's RR3 to 6), S/o. LAte Laxmi Narayana Business R/o. H.No. 14-1-363, New Agapura, Hyderabad

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agrilcultural Market Committee

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

Section 96 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 04.02.201 1 passed in O.S.No. 2 of 1999 on the file of the lX Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Between: 1. SARANGA KRISHNA MURTHY (Died per LR's RR3 to 6), S/o. LAte Laxmi Narayana Business R/o. H.No. 14-1-363, New Agapura, Hyderabad

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

The appeals are dismissed

96 14 3. Aluminium Rods/Wires 50 18 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

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

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

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

The appeal is allowed

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

96. The underpinnings of compulsory registration of FIR is not only to ensure transparency in the criminal justice-delivery system but also to ensure ―judicial oversight‖. Section 157(1) deploys the word ―forthwith‖. Thus, any information received under Section 154(1) or otherwise has to be duly informed in the form of a report to the Magistrate. Thus