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

bogus, obtained with fraud by plaintiff Company and the suit itself is vitiated by fraud. In the said para 1st defendant also says the witnesses to the sale deed are none other than the wife and daughter of R.Devdas. 1st defendant denies that the plaintiff is in possession of the schedule property. 2nd defendant was in dominating position with

M/S VAIBHAV vs. JOINT COMM. OF INCOME TAX RANGE 3 HYD

Appeal is allowed and the judgments and decrees passed by the

Bench: The Learned Trial Court) Was Allowed & The Judgment & Decree Dated 12.12.2000, Passed By Learned Senior Sub Judge, Kullu Was Set-Aside. (Parties Shall Hereinafter Be Referred To In

x 12 ft in length and breadth for the plaintiff at his (defendant’s) expenses. Two rooms were to be completed and furnished, while the third room was not to be furnished. It was agreed that the construction would be completed on or before 31.7.1995. The plaintiff would hand over the possession of the suit land to the defendant

The Commissioner of Income -Tax - III, vs. Shri Taher Ali

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

bogus complaint dated 12.10.1990 to B.M.C. authorities as defendant no.2 had filed affidavit dated 10.9.1990 in favour of one of the tenants, Smt. Vasanti B. Palan in Suit (ST) 647 of 1990. Defendant no.2, by his Advocates' letter dated 28.10.1990 had placed various facts on record. On 8.11.1990, B.M.C. authorities issued notice under section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation