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

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

274, relevant para- 9, 21 to 24.  Union of India Vs. Paliwal Electricals Pvt. Ltd, reported in (1996) 3 SCC 407, para- 8 to 10. 20. The learned Advocate General while placing reliance upon Section-94 of the JVAT Act, 2005, more particularly the provisions contained under sub-Section 3 of Section-94 has contended that a bare 42 reading

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

274, relevant para- 9, 21 to 24.  Union of India Vs. Paliwal Electricals Pvt. Ltd, reported in (1996) 3 SCC 407, para- 8 to 10. 20. The learned Advocate General while placing reliance upon Section-94 of the JVAT Act, 2005, more particularly the provisions contained under sub-Section 3 of Section-94 has contended that a bare 42 reading

THE PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, HYDERABAD vs. M/S PEGASYSTEMS WORLDWIDE INDIA PVT. LTD. HYDERABAD

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 260A of thr, Income Ta_x Act, i96 1, has been preferred by the Revenue as the appellant against the order dated 16.10-2015 passed by the Income Ta-r Appellate rrluunat, Hydcrabad "B" Bench, Hvderabad, in LT.A.No. t936 lHydl20t4 for the Assessment Year 20 10- I I . 3. central Board of Direct Taxes (cBDT) has issued circular No.9

INCOME TAX BANGALORE vs. SHALINI BHUPAL

Appeal is dismissed

transfer, in either case, had been made at the market value of such goods as on that date : Provided that where, in the opinion of the [Assessing] Officer, the computation of the profits and gains of the industrial undertaking or the business of the hotel or the operation of the ship [or the business of repairs to ocean-going vessels

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

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

Section 178 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the Chairman of the company, HVL cannot arrogate unto himself the power to cause such appointment when such power ultimately rests with the Board of Directors. The observation of the two Joint APLs that the evident performance of BCrL, the flagship company of MP Birla Group is deteriorating ever since, HVL became

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

274, the Supreme Court ruled that the main guiding principle for determining the compensation is that it “must be just” and further that it “must be reasonable”. As observed in UP State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362 compensation awarded in such cases has primarily two elements; the pecuniary loss to the estate of the deceased

The Commissioner of Income Tax -III vs. Sri T.C. Reddy

The appeal stands dismissed

274 of the Income-tax Act for concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars are initiated separately. (iv) The assessee has booked various expenses of contractual nature, vide order sheet entry dated 29.12.2009, the assessee was asked to show cause why the same should not disallowed u/s40a(ia). In response thereto the assessee has only filed copy of bills of these

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

SECTION 19(1) OF THE BDA ACT I.E., ANNEX-P, IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONER IN SY.NO.30/6 & 30/7, K. NARAYANAPURA VILLAGE, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, MEASURING 22 GUNTAS AND 26 GUNTAS RESPECTIVELY. IN W.P.NO.55081/2014: BETWEEN: MR N. R. VENKATESHMURTHY S/O SRI. RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE NO.5