THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

HOUSING PVT.LTD ...... Respondent Through: Mr. M.S. Syali, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arta Trana Panda and Ms. Gargi Sethee, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 5 of 36 J U D G M E N T Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.: 1. These are 11 appeals under Section 260-A of the Income

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

HOUSING PVT.LTD ...... Respondent Through: Mr. M.S. Syali, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arta Trana Panda and Ms. Gargi Sethee, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 5 of 36 J U D G M E N T Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.: 1. These are 11 appeals under Section 260-A of the Income

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

property held under trust wholly or partly for charitable or religious purposes shall not be included in the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt of the income. A market committee, constituted under Section 4 of the AMC Act, as mandated by Section 15 of the AMC Act read with Rule 27 of the Rules

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

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

property held under trust wholly or partly for charitable or religious purposes shall not be included in the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt of the income. A market committee, constituted under Section 4 of the AMC Act, as mandated by Section 15 of the AMC Act read with Rule 27 of the Rules

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. M/S NMDC LIMITED

In the result, this Appeal Suit is partly allowed by modifying the

Bench: The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court Reserved On : 19.03.2024 Delivered On : 18.06.2024 Coram The Hon'Ble Mrs.Justice L.Victoria Gowri A.S.(Md)No.110 Of 2015 1.S.Govindasamy 2.S.Rajaraman 3.S.Kalaiselvan ... Appellants

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur. 2.The appellants/plaintiffs have filed the above suit, claiming the following reliefs:- “1.To pass a preliminary decree for partition in favour of the plaintiff directing the defendants to divide the suit properties by metes and bounds, and thereby allot 7/30 share to each of the plaintiffs in item No.1 to 10 of the suit properties

M/S.HASTALLOY INDIA LTD vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/VIZAG

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

income from house property could be changed to one from trade or business merely because the hiring is inclusive of certain additional

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Sri N.Sai Baba Naidu

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

income from house property” stood disallowed. The net result was an addition of `52,92,000/-. 3. The assessee filed

The Commissioner of Income Tax - IV vs. M/s. Mekins Agro Product (P) Ltd.

house 8. property, interest on securities, capital gains, or other sources, the word 'income' should be understood in its commercial sense, i.e., book income, after adding back any appropriations or applications thereof towards the purpose of the trust or otherwise, and also after adding back any debits made for capital expenditure incurred for the purposes of the trust or otherwise.lt

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III HYDERABAD vs. M/s. Vasant Organics Private Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

house property is to be deducted from the gross income of the deceased. In addition to this, the deceased had paid

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Dr. T.Ravi Kumar,

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 10Th April, 2024. Appearance: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjay Bhowmick, Advocate Ms. Swapna Das, Advocate … For The Appellant. Ms. Smita Das De, Advocate … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Sanjay Bhowmick, Learned Counsel For The Appellant/Assessee & Ms. Smita Das De, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Respondent. 2. The Assessment Years Involved In The Present Appeal Are Assessment Year 1999-2000 & Assessment Year 2000-01. By Order Dated 16.08.2012, This Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :-

house property” and deduction in respect of such income has been wrongly claimed under Section 24. Accordingly, he requested the said income to be treated as income under the head “income from business or profession”. He also claimed interest of Rs.60,50,250/- as deductible expenditure being interest paid on loans to financial institutions during the previous year

M/s. Sathavahana Ispat Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

house property. The simple case is that the rent of a past year increased retrospectively shall be the annual rent of such past year or years but not the annual rent of the year in which it is received consequent upon subsequent increase.‖ 9. This judgment was followed by the same High Court in Hope (India

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/S Sri Krishna Drugs Ltd.,

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

addition sought to be made for the years previous to the year when the enhanced rents or mesne profits became payable was challenged by the assessee in appeals to the CIT (A). The Appellate Commissioner by his order, held that the action of the AO in including/adding the arrears of rent as the assessee’s income from house property

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Krishna Wines

The appeals are dismissed

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

House Property and not as a business income. However, if the building is let out on daily rental basis, certainly it should be treated as a business activity. However, there is nothing to indicate in the records that the appellant was engaged in lodging business, which is not proved even with register of guests maintained by the appellant. Unless

M/s The Eluru Co-operative House Mortgage Society Limited vs. Income Tax Officwer

The appeal is allowed

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 Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. G Pulla Reddy Chritable Trust

In the result, the orders passed by the Commissioner of

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 2 "SHILPASHREE", VIDYARANYA COMPLEX VISHWESWARANAGAR, MYSURU. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-2(1), "SHILPASHREE" VIDYARANYA COMPLEX VISHWESWARANAGAR, MYSURU. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 28.11.2014 PASSED IN ITA 2 NO.269/BANG/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. P. Nagabhushana Rao

Appeal is allowed by holding that the appellant/plaintiff is the owner of 1/7th

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

additional issues were framed on 19.5.2004 and these issues read as under:- “i. Whether L. Sh. G.S. Puri had executed a will dated 21.9.75 as mentioned in preliminary objection of the written statement of defendant Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6? OPD ii. Whether L. Smt. Pushpawati Puri executed a Will dated 22.9.97 as mentioned in preliminary objection

The Commissioner of Income Tax-V vs. M/s.Sri Somnath Wood Industries

In the result, revision application succeeds

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

additional evidence. The revision application, therefore, has to be decided only on the basis of evidence produced before the trial Court. 10. There can be no two views over what has been observed by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (supra). The question is whether the findings recorded by both

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s OCV Reinforcement Manufacturing Limited

Appeal stands dismissed

Additional Sub Court, Kozhikode confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court in A.S.No.24/2009. 2. Material facts relevant for the adjudication of this appeal are briefly narrated below: 2.1. The plaintiffs instituted the suit for prohibitory and mandatory injunctions against the defendants in respect of the plaint schedule properties. The plaintiffs are residing in the plaint item No.2 property. Item