THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI METTAM PENCHALA NAIDU

Bench: This Court That The 1St Assessment Order Of The Ito Was Passed On 28.03.1988, Which Was Challenged Before The Leaned Cit (A) & The Same Was Dismissed On 28.11.1988. Against The Said Order, The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Itat, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, Which Was Dismissed On 19.01.1990. Thereafter, By Order Dated 13.12.1990 Passed In A Misc. Application, The Order Dated 19.01.1990 Was Recalled & The Matter Was Heard Afresh. Again On 10.05.1991, Learned Tribunal Decided The Matter & Allowed The Exemption To The Assessee. The Revenue Filed Writ Petition Before This Court Challenging The Rectification Order Dated 13.12.1990. This Court On 02.12.1991 Allowed The Writ Petition & Quashed The Recalling Order Dated 13.12.1990 As Well As Its Substantive Order Dated

loss disclosed. The exclusion of this amount from the turnover was concluded to be improper. The assessee challenged the assessment in appeal before the CIT, (A), Orissa, who affirmed the addition. The matter was carried in appeal before the Tribunal. By order dated 19th January, 1990, the Tribunal upheld the assessment. An application was filed by the assessee purported

The Commissioner of Income Tax III,. vs. Sri Sudhir Sanghi

Bench: This Court That The 1St Assessment Order Of The Ito Was Passed On 28.03.1988, Which Was Challenged Before The Leaned Cit (A) & The Same Was Dismissed On 28.11.1988. Against The Said Order, The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Itat, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, Which Was Dismissed On 19.01.1990. Thereafter, By Order Dated 13.12.1990 Passed In A Misc. Application, The Order Dated 19.01.1990 Was Recalled & The Matter Was Heard Afresh. Again On 10.05.1991, Learned Tribunal Decided The Matter & Allowed The Exemption To The Assessee. The Revenue Filed Writ Petition Before This Court Challenging The Rectification Order Dated 13.12.1990. This Court On 02.12.1991 Allowed The Writ Petition & Quashed The Recalling Order Dated 13.12.1990 As Well As Its Substantive Order Dated

loss disclosed. The exclusion of this amount from the turnover was concluded to be improper. The assessee challenged the assessment in appeal before the CIT, (A), Orissa, who affirmed the addition. The matter was carried in appeal before the Tribunal. By order dated 19th January, 1990, the Tribunal upheld the assessment. An application was filed by the assessee purported

M/s. Maruthi Movies vs. Income Tax Officer

Bench: This Court & Making The Same A Rule Of Court, Alongwith Decree Against Respondents Awarding Rs.5,35,920/- Paid By The Petitioner To The Arbitrator As Their Share Of Fees As Per Order Dated 21.12.2010. 2. Respondent No.1 Has Filed Its Objections To The Award Under Section 30 & 33 Of The Act In Form Of I.A. No.9067/2011. Respondent No.2 Has Also Filed Its Objections To The Award.

forwarded a list of other properties which may be considered by the respondents as alternative accommodation, including one property in Defence Colony, which was one of the preferred locality. 16. The counsel for the respondent no.2 was unable to show any response given to this letter by the respondents. Therefore, the finding of CS(OS) No.486/2011 Page 7 the Arbitrator

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

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

loss on account of Central Sales Tax for the period 2011-12 onwards. It has been submitted that pursuant to the minutes of the said meeting, proviso was inserted in clause(ii) and (iii) of sub- Section (4) of Section 18 of the JVAT Act, vide Amending Act contained in notification dated 23.9.2015 providing, inter-alia, that the benefit

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

loss on account of Central Sales Tax for the period 2011-12 onwards. It has been submitted that pursuant to the minutes of the said meeting, proviso was inserted in clause(ii) and (iii) of sub- Section (4) of Section 18 of the JVAT Act, vide Amending Act contained in notification dated 23.9.2015 providing, inter-alia, that the benefit

Commissioenr of Income Tax vs. Dr. T. Ravi Kumar

house, etc. In the case of CIT vs. Jai Bharat Maruti Ltd. (2007) 212 CTR (Del>)250, the High Court has held that recording of satisfaction by AO is sine quo non for the purpose of initiating penalty under Section 271(1) (c). From the reading of the assessment order it is not clear that whether the AO was satisfied

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

carried forward for subsequent years for application for charitable purposes. The appeal is disposed of as above by answering the question in favour ofthe Revenue but by granting the reliefto the assessee as above." 5. As is clear from paragraph 6 above, the Kerala High Court has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Escorts

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s. Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Ltd.,

forward to claim any right, title or interest in the suit property and further the “Will‟ of the original landlord/owner cannot be contested or disputed by the tenant and the petitioner though an absolute owner of the suit property was also entitled to maintain the eviction petition as a co-owner of the property. It was reiterated that the premises

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

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

houses, water facilities in the market areas and cater to the needs of the sellers and buyers of the agricultural produce in the notified market area. Can it then be said that the AMC is constituted for a charitable purpose i.e., for the advancement of object of general public utility? ANALYSIS OF THE ORDER OF CIT AND ITAT

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

houses, water facilities in the market areas and cater to the needs of the sellers and buyers of the agricultural produce in the notified market area. Can it then be said that the AMC is constituted for a charitable purpose i.e., for the advancement of object of general public utility? ANALYSIS OF THE ORDER OF CIT AND ITAT

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

House Rates Control Act for eviction on the ground of sub-letting, Page 11 of 36 C/CRA/79/2007 JUDGMENT the landlord has preferred an appeal wherein the judgment was reversed and it was held that mere fact that tenant is a majority shareholder does not sufficient to disprove sub-letting. It was shown that tenant is actually controlling and managing business

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Shri Raaj Kumar Jain

house” does not lead to the discovery of a knife; knives were discovered many years ago. It leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the informant to his knowledge, and if the knife is proved to have been used in the commission of the offence, the fact discovered is very relevant

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, vs. M/s. V.Dhana Reddy AND Co.,

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

property of the deceased. 22. Amount of compensation claimed. 23. Any other information that may be necessary or helpful in the disposal of the claim. I ..................................solemnly declare that the particulars given above are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Signature or thumb-impression of the applicant ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FORM SR-49 [See Rule 204(1)] Application for compensation

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s Indur Green Power Private Limited

In the result, all the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

forward 4,07,88,644 1,98,01,402 1,35,43,083 20,44,236 Balance carried to balance sheet 6,61,10,082 4,07,88,644 1,98,01,402 12,08,000 This case has been received on transfer from the Circle- 4, Ahmedabad, the folder for A.Y.2006-07 is not readily available and hence the data

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

loss to plaintiff-Company. 2nd defendant gave a paper publication in Indian Express dated 17.03.1992 stating that 1st defendant and her husband have authorized her to deal with their properties. But 1st defendant gave separate publication on 18.3.1992 stating that she has not authorized 2nd defendant to represent her and to deal with her property. 12. It is also stated

The commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s Lanco Kondapalli Power (P) Ltd

House, Nhava Sheva. 5. Commissioner of Customs, Office of the Commissioner of Customs (NS-1), Jawaharlal Nehru Customs House, Nhava Sheva. …Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2091 OF 2022 Balkrishna Industries Ltd, Page 108 of 198 22nd March 2024 Saurer Textile Solutions Pvt Ltd v The State of Maharashtra & Ors & Connected Writ Petitions 1-2-oswp-1494-2023-J+.docx

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

HOUSING AND URBAN DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE 560001 BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARAPARK WEST BANGALORE 20 R/P BY ITS COMMISSIONER 117 3. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARAPARK WEST BANGALORE 20 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.V. SHASHIKUMAR, AGA FOR R1) THIS W.P. IS FILED

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed

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

properties or combinations, whether by hand labor or machine. (Tara Agencies[5]). The word 'manufacture' has been defined in Halsbury's Laws of England, (3rd Ed. Vol. 29 p.23) as a manner of adapting natural material by the hands of man or by man-made devices or machinery, and as the making of an article or material by physical labour