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

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

bogus, as she never paid the 14 consideration for the sale though she admitted the execution of the sale deed before the Registrar. Her story that she was ignorant of the nature of the transaction, it was held, cannot be accepted as she had admitted the execution of the sale deed before the Registrar. 11. A Division Bench of this

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [TDS] vs. M/s.KCIL-MEIL [JV]

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

28 YEARS, OT.REV 212/2015 -2- PUNNELIPPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOMBODINJAMAKKAL, THAZHEKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT *ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS R2 TO R4 AS PER VIDE ORDER DTD. 29/10/18 IN IA NO. 3/18 BY ADVS. SRI.P.R.AJITHKUMAR SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN SRI.K.SRIKUMAR SR. OTHER PRESENT: SPL. G.P TAXES MOHAMMED RAFIQ FOR THE PETITIONER THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.11.2021, THE COURT

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

Section 148 of the Act to the assessee at the address i.e. 109, North Idgah Colony, Agra available on the assessee's Bank Account No.10309 in Canara Bank (SSI Branch), Sanjay Place, Agra. 4. The said notice was issued after recording reasons that the assessee had obtained or credited an amount of Rs.5,28,183.00 and Rs.5,79,424.00 from

Commissioner of Income tax-VI vs. M/s. Narpat Girji Constructions,

The appeal is allowed

28 - OSA No. 19 of 2015 Company being wound up, be deemed a fraudulent preference of its creditors and be invalid accordingly. 37. Section 531 of the Companies Act reads as under: "531. FRAUDULENT PREFERENCE (1) Any transfer of property, movable or immovable, delivery of goods, payment, execution or other act relating to property made, taken or done

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Nama Nageshwar Rao

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

purchased shares of an unlisted private company in 2010. This unlisted company then merged with another unlisted company, M/s Focus Industrial Resources Ltd. and shares of this merged entity were allotted to the Assessee. Subsequently, the merged entity allotted further bonus shares to the Assessee and thereafter it was listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange. Assessee sold these shares

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

Sections 73, 74 and 75 49 of the Indian Registration Act, indicate the formalities. 49. When the execution is denied by the seller after completing formalities of execution, the Sub- Registrar would get authority to admit the execution. The purchaser has a right to present the document for compulsory registration. In this case, it was not the case of refusing

The Commissioner of Income Tax V vs. M/s.Orchem Industries

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

bogus or sham all factors are required to be taken into consideration and in this case from facts on record, it appears that the partnership is sham and it is used as a devise to protect the tenacy right. Regarding revisional jurisdiction, he has submitted that the powers of the revisional court though limited but if it is found from

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S Gulf Oil Corporation Pvt. Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

28 L & T 19,45,000 18.2.92 a) 10,000 194.50 21,30,000 b) 5,000 9,35,000 19.2.92 187.00 21.1.92 142.00 Rs.7,50,000/­ Total LossRs.16,88,250/­ 8.2. The   Assessing   Officer   after   verification  found that the assessee had sold the shares  prior in point of time without involving any  broker, and thereafter, purchased the shares  through

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Jayalakshmi Chits

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

28 L & T 19,45,000 18.2.92 a) 10,000 194.50 21,30,000 b) 5,000 9,35,000 19.2.92 187.00 21.1.92 142.00 Rs.7,50,000/­ Total LossRs.16,88,250/­ 8.2. The   Assessing   Officer   after   verification  found that the assessee had sold the shares  prior in point of time without involving any  broker, and thereafter, purchased the shares  through

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

28 L & T 19,45,000 18.2.92 a) 10,000 194.50 21,30,000 b) 5,000 9,35,000 19.2.92 187.00 21.1.92 142.00 Rs.7,50,000/­ Total LossRs.16,88,250/­ 8.2. The   Assessing   Officer   after   verification  found that the assessee had sold the shares  prior in point of time without involving any  broker, and thereafter, purchased the shares  through

M/s Sri Surya Constructions vs. The Income Tax Officer

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

bogus. The same is a matter of trial regarding the authenticity of the documents. The Court only has to see whether there is a cause of action in favour of the plaintiff to continue with the suit. 20. Hence, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has clarified that while determining any application filed under Order VII Rule