THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

house property?” 5. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of development of properties, construction and engineering activities and such other activities in relation to development of properties. One Mr.Yunus Zia, Mr.Ziaulla Sheriff and M/s.India Builders Corporation were subjected to a search operation

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

house property?” 5. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of development of properties, construction and engineering activities and such other activities in relation to development of properties. One Mr.Yunus Zia, Mr.Ziaulla Sheriff and M/s.India Builders Corporation were subjected to a search operation

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S UNITED SPIRITS LTD (IN THE CASE OF CENTRAL

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

Additional issues framed on 18.06.2011: 7. Whether the defendant No.3 proves that the counter claim made in his written statement properties are the joint family properties, defendant No.3 is entitled for 1/3rd share? 8. Whether the plaintiff and defendants are entitled for mesne profits? 29. The plaintiff to substantiate her claim examined herself as P.W.1 and relied on relinquishment deed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S PRESTIGE ESTATE PROJECTS PVT LTD

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

additional substantial questions of law would also arise for consideration: (2) Whether tribunal was correct in holding rental income received from Forum Mall should be considered as “Income from business” and not “Income from house property

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. GOURAWWA B GORNAL

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: A.N.VENUGOPALA GOWDA

income, and therefore the said lands as well as the Touring Cinema Business continued as joint family properties when his grandfather, Sri Rama Raiker died on 25.08.1942. Sri. Narahari Raiker i.e., the plaintiff’s father, was aged about 19 - 22 years when Sri. Rama Raiker died, and Sri Narahari Raiker continued the Touring Cinema Business. The joint family owned

M/S SOBHA INTERIORS (P) LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

property. Being aggrieved, the assessee had preferred respective appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals]. The Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] confirmed the findings of the Assessing Officer and sustained the additions relating to the determination of the income from house

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S GOLF VIEW HOMES LTD.,

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

income from house property and it cannot be mixed up with the issue for disallowance of interest of the advances given to the sister concerns viz., Diamond District and Platinum City. He therefore submitted that the Tribunal has committed a serious error and in any case the finding of the Tribunal is perverse and hence this Court may set aside

M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE UNION OF INDIA REPTD BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri W.P. No.26037/2005 C/W W.P.No.4464/2007 & W.P.No.27087/2005(It)

additional income- tax) of this Act in respect of the total income of the previous year of every person. The term 'total income' has been defined in Section 2(45) of the Act to mean the total amount of income referred to in Section 5, computed in the manner laid down in this Act. Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THE BELGAUM TALUKA RURAL INDUSTRIAL

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY,S.SUJATHA

additional portion of 105 square yards on the northern side, abutting the property bearing CTS No.593/2, to the plaintiff. Accordingly, they jointly executed a registered deed of gift on 29.11.2004. As the plaintiff had already separated and had got constructed a house for himself in CTS No.593/2 and the same did not have passage for the purpose of access from

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BELLAD and COMPANY

Appeal is allowed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar Regular First Appeal No.100154 Of 2015 (Par/Pos) Between:

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi, thereby dismissing the suit filed for partition and separate possession and for declaration. 2. For the purpose of convenience, ranking of the parties is referred to as per their status before the trial Court. - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6906 RFA No. 100154 of 2015 Brief facts of the case are as follows: 3. Plaintiffs

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. M/S MINITECHS

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

income from house property by submission of revised returns and payment of tax even before the proceedings were initiated by the department after survey. 7. Apart from the above, the additional

M/S BANGALORE PHARMACEUTICAL vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is disposed of;

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

house property and is to be allowed as a deduction under "profits and gains of business and profession"? 2. Whether the Tribunal in law as well as facts correct in restricting the deduction for interest on borrowed funds u/s 24 only for the period after the building was let out, while clause (b) of Section 24 permits deduction of interest

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S ANANTHAPUR MINING CORPORATION,

Appeal is allowed in part

Bench: M.I.ARUN,G.NARENDAR

house at Gadag and she pleads ignorance about the income of defendant No.2. It is suggested to PW-1 that said property was purchased by defendant No.2 out of her income. The said suggestion was denied. She has deposed that her uncle had purchased the property in the name of defendant No.2

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LATE KHOOBCHAND M MAKHIJA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

Additional Commissioner of Income Tax. In response to this notice, the assessee filed a return of income for the assessment year 1996-97 on 28.8.2002 declaring a total income of Rs.3,46,557/-. Subsequently, notices under Section 142(1) and 143(2) were issued. By that time, the assessee had died. His legal representatives – sons appeared through an authorized representative

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. KARNATAKA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LIMITED

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice K.Somashekar

house at Vijayanagar. These are all not considered by the trial court while discharging the accused. The trial Court also failed to notice that the accused has also purchased different immovable properties in the name of his father-in-law and during the investigation, the investigating officer collected the statement of seller and also the respondent has also participated

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTORS

The appeal is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

HOUSE NO. 261, 1ST FLOOR Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - MFA No.399 of 2017 7TH "B" MAIN, 1ST STAGE HEBBAL, DEVARAJA MOHALLA MYSORE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ABUBACKER SHAFI, ADV., FOR R1 V/O DTD:21.1.2022 NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W) - - - THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 19(1) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S GOLF VIEW HOMES LTD

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

income from house property and it cannot be mixed up with the issue for disallowance of interest of the advances given to the sister concerns viz., Diamond District and Platinum City. He therefore submitted that the Tribunal has committed a serious error and in any case the finding of the Tribunal is perverse and hence this Court may set aside

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S GOLF VIEW HOMES LTD

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

income from house property and it cannot be mixed up with the issue for disallowance of interest of the advances given to the sister concerns viz., Diamond District and Platinum City. He therefore submitted that the Tribunal has committed a serious error and in any case the finding of the Tribunal is perverse and hence this Court may set aside