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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

carry forward loss,  therefore, no set off of the same is given.” 9.4. Referring to the above facts which are not in  dispute, it was submitted that the Tribunal  has brushed aside the relevant facts and has  relied upon the irrelevant facts to hold that  the   assessee   is   not   entitled   to   claim   the  loss suffered by it. The Tribunal

The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) vs. Madhu Enterprises

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

loss on account of Central Sales Tax for the period 2011-12 onwards. It has been submitted that pursuant to the minutes of the said meeting, proviso was inserted in clause(ii) and (iii) of sub- Section (4) of Section 18 of the JVAT Act, vide Amending Act contained in notification dated 23.9.2015 providing, inter-alia, that the benefit

S.l. Shiva Raj vs. Commissioner of Income Tax,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

loss on account of Central Sales Tax for the period 2011-12 onwards. It has been submitted that pursuant to the minutes of the said meeting, proviso was inserted in clause(ii) and (iii) of sub- Section (4) of Section 18 of the JVAT Act, vide Amending Act contained in notification dated 23.9.2015 providing, inter-alia, that the benefit

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax vs. D.L.V. Sridhar

Bench: D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Pricing Officer had not verified whether the expenditure claimed was correct. Recording the aforesaid findings, the Assessing Officer disallowed the entire claim of Rs.1,48,89,090/- under section 10A of the Act. 5. The aforesaid addition was deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who observed that the respondent-assessee was maintaining separate accounts for STPI

PR COMMR OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. K RAVINDER REDDY, HYDERABAD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

price, and requesting them to place an order with the foreign headquarters were not auxiliary or preparatory in nature. The observations and findings of the High Court are eerily similar to the facts of this case: “Relying on these provisions, it is contended by the assessee that the liaison office was opened to act as a communication channel between

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

loss to plaintiff-Company. 2nd defendant gave a paper publication in Indian Express dated 17.03.1992 stating that 1st defendant and her husband have authorized her to deal with their properties. But 1st defendant gave separate publication on 18.3.1992 stating that she has not authorized 2nd defendant to represent her and to deal with her property. 12. It is also stated

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M.Venkata Krishna Mohan

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

price of Raw-Edge and Wrapped V-Belts excluding sales tax, excise duty and other governmental taxes and levies, insurance, forwarding and packaging expenses nad freight charges. (b). Unless otherwise specified by the Proprietor, the royality hereunder shall be paid to Hilton Rubbers Limited, S-21, Green Park Extension, i_e “” Delhi 110016, in India Rupees at half yearly intervals

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD vs. M/S. ANDHRA PRADESH PAPER MILLS, HYDERABAD

Bench: The Trial Court. 4. The Brief Averments Of The Plaint, In O.S. No.25 Of 2002, Are As Under:

loss to the defendants. As such the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief of specific performance of contract as there are laches on the part of the plaintiff. The cause of action is not correct and the court fee paid is also not correct. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues; 7 VGKRJ

M/s. Maruthi Movies vs. Income Tax Officer

Bench: This Court & Making The Same A Rule Of Court, Alongwith Decree Against Respondents Awarding Rs.5,35,920/- Paid By The Petitioner To The Arbitrator As Their Share Of Fees As Per Order Dated 21.12.2010. 2. Respondent No.1 Has Filed Its Objections To The Award Under Section 30 & 33 Of The Act In Form Of I.A. No.9067/2011. Respondent No.2 Has Also Filed Its Objections To The Award.

forwarded a list of other properties which may be considered by the respondents as alternative accommodation, including one property in Defence Colony, which was one of the preferred locality. 16. The counsel for the respondent no.2 was unable to show any response given to this letter by the respondents. Therefore, the finding of CS(OS) No.486/2011 Page 7 the Arbitrator

Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur. vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Kangiri.

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

Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 or any other bank being a bank included in Second Schedule to Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and the like. The breach of Section 11(5) would attract Section 13(1)(d) of the IT Act and the benefit under Sections 11 and 12 would not be available if funds are deposited or invested

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 or any other bank being a bank included in Second Schedule to Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and the like. The breach of Section 11(5) would attract Section 13(1)(d) of the IT Act and the benefit under Sections 11 and 12 would not be available if funds are deposited or invested

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s. Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Ltd.,

loss A/c, auditor‟s report and the schedule forming part of financial statement as 31.03.2011 of Mastex Embroideries (India) Ltd. and auditor‟s pre-operative expenses and significant accounting policies and notes to accounts of Uni Oil Co. Pvt. Ltd. vide its order dated March 26, 2013. 7. The learned ARC upheld the issues of entitlement of the petitioner

The commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s Lanco Kondapalli Power (P) Ltd

carrying on business in the name and style of Shakti Chemicals as a sole proprietary concern having its office at 206/207, Wadala Udhyog Bhavan, Naigaon Cross Road, Mumbai 400 031. …Petitioner ~ versus ~ 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Government Pleader, High Court, Bombay. 2. Inspector General of Page 129 of 198 22nd March 2024 Saurer Textile Solutions

The Pr. Commissioner of Income tax (Central), vs. Sri Vaishnavi Educational Society,

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.51929/2014 C/W W.P.Nos.42063/2012, 30494/2013, 42671/2013, 638/2014, 797/2014, 1089/2014, 3211/2014, 3389/2014, 6180/2014, 10356/2014, 12014/2014, 12015/2014, 13043/2014, 13045/2014, 13206/2014, 13207/2014, 13398/2014, 13774/2014, 14149/2014, 14161/2014, 14494/2014, 14502/2014, 14521/2014, 14689/2014, 16646/2014, 17051/2014, 17594/2014, 19729/2014, 21158/2014, 23897/2014, 28861/2014, 30731/2014, 31723/2014, 33774/2014, 33777/2014, 34084/2014, 34259/2014, 34272/2014, 34391/2014, 35204/2014, 35243/2014, 35247/2014, 35305/2014, 35609/2014, 36164/2014, 36166/2014, 36489/2014, 36525/2014, 36971/2014, 37446/2014, 38055/2014, 38463/2014, 38471/2014, 38472/2014, 38661/2014, 38753/2014, 39383/2014, 39633/2014, 39832/2014, 40204/2014, 40379/2014, 41394/2014, 41422/2014, 41427/2014, 41428/2014, 41858/2014, 43815/2014, 43963/2014, 44306/2014, 44527/2014, 44742/2014, 44835/2014, 45486/2014, 46766/2014, 47103/2014, 47105/2014, 47106/2014, 47107/2014, 47608/2014, 47731/2014, 47821/2014, 47860/2014, 47913/2014, 48577/2014, 48880/2014, 49567/2014, 50260/2014, 50533/2014, 51294/2014, 51930/2014, 51931/2014, 51932/2014, 52760/2014, 53854/2014, 54059/2014, 54083/2014, 54236/2014

CARRY OUT THE AMENDMENT AS SOUGHT FOR AND ETC. IN W.P.NO.12792/2018: BETWEEN: 1. MRS. NIDHYA XAVIER AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS D/O A.M.M.S. XAVIER, R/O PLOT NO.24, 'ROYAL ENCLAVE ENTENSION', 'KALAKRUTHI AVENUE', INJAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI-600 041 REPRESENTED BY HER GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR.LINUS MARIADOSS AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE MR. JOSEPH VEDANAYAGAM, R/O NO.44/30, 5TH CROSS, GRACE