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

house property. The Assessee also claimed deduction of 1/5th of the repairs amounting to Rs. 41,29,837 under Section

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

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

property. xxx xxx xxx 5.1 Disputed additions/variations in computation of income from business:- Subject to appropriate deduction or exemption, as the case may be, under the provisions of Sec.80P, these fresh assessments computed business income for the first time with reference to substantial losses disclosed as per P & L accounts incorporating both the business transactions and those relating to house

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” i.e., lease rent Rs.15,00,000/- less Rs.3,75,000/- as deduction under Section 24(1)(i)of the Income

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

house property. Even after the death of the deceased, this income towards rent, is continued and therefore, this amount shall be deducted

The Commissioner of Inccome Tax-III vs. Speectra Shares AND Scrips Pvt Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

House Estate Ltd. illustrate the contrary proposition. There, the property, though dealt with by a company intending to do business, was dealt with as landowner. The intention in those cases was not to derive profit by business done with those properties but to derive .income by renting them out Where a Company acquires properties which it sells or leases

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

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

deductions under Section 24 claimed by the assessee on the footing that the rental income was assessable under the head “income from house property

Vidyananda Educational Society vs. The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Exemptions)II

Bench: The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court Dated : 12.08.2022 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice P.Velmurugan A.S. (Md) No.152 Of 2013 & Cross. Obj(Md)No.23 Of 2022 A.S(Md)No.152 Of 2013 The Special Tahsildar (La) Adi-Dravidar Welfare Periyakulam, Theni District. ... Appellant/Referring Officer Vs. Thiru.Manikandan (Died) 2.Mrs.Sornam 3.Mrs.Kaleeswari 4.Sivakumar 5.M.Kohiladevi ... Respondents/ Claimants Nos.2 To 5 Prayer: Appeal Suit Filed Under Section 54 Of The Land Acquisition Act, To Set Aside The Judgment & Decree, Dated 20.12.2006 Made In L.A.O.P.No. 11 Of 1996, On The File Of The Land Acquisition Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court-Cum-Fast Track No.4, Periyakulam. _________ Page 1 Of 15 Https://Www.Mhc.Tn.Gov.In/Judis

deduct the amount already received by the claimant and to pay interest at the rate of 9% for a period of three months _________ Page 3 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S. (MD) No.152 of 2013 & Cross.Obj(M)DNo.23 of 2022 and for the rest of the period the respondent has to pay interest at the rate of 12% from that

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

property, not charged to income- tax for any previous year, the amount so received, after deducting a sum equal to thirty per cent of such amount, shall be deemed to be the income chargeable under the head ‗Income from house

THE PRL COMMR OF INCOME TAX - 7, HYDERABAD vs. DECCAN GRAMEENA BANK, HYDERABAD

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

house property and agricultural land need not be deducted merely because properties have been bequeathed to the dependents. The compensation

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

house property. The said provision reads as follows: ITAs 166, 168, 243, 778/2006 Page 8 “Section 23. ANNUAL VALUE HOW DETERMINED. (1) For the purposes of section 22, the annual value of any property shall be deemed to be - (a) The sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year; or (b) Where

The Commissioner of Income Tax(Central) vs. M/s.Madhu Enterprises

Bench: The Learned

deduction of ₹90 crores under Section 54F of the Act asserting that the consideration received from the sale of shares of FIITJEE Ltd. — an unlisted company, the gains from which would otherwise be chargeable to tax as capital gains — was invested in acquiring a residential house property

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

house property and does not have any brought forward loss under the head; or (iii) “Income from other sources”, except winnings from lottery or income from race horses, [and does not have any loss under the head] be in Form [SAHAJ] (ITR-1) and be verified in the manner indicated therein:] [Provided that the provisions of this clause shall

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

house property and does not have any brought forward loss under the head; or (iii) “Income from other sources”, except winnings from lottery or income from race horses, [and does not have any loss under the head] be in Form [SAHAJ] (ITR-1) and be verified in the manner indicated therein:] [Provided that the provisions of this clause shall

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

property should be allowed. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The depreciation if it is not allowed as a necessary deduction for computing the income from the charitable institutions, then there is no way to preserve the corpus ofthe trust for derivingthe income. The Board also appears to have understood the " income " u/s. 11(1) in its commercial sense. The relevant portion of the Circular

-

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

deductions. It is contended that neither he has household property nor he gets rent of Rs. 10,000/-. He does not have any agricultural land. The Family Court directed the husband to pay maintenance @ Rs. 3500/- per month each to daughters from 01.01.2010. Maintenance to the wife is rejected in view of order for payment of permanent alimony

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

house property for a sum of Rs.2,03,986/- and capital gains at Rs.19,06,984/- and declared income from other sources at Rs.1,55,438/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 30.08.2010. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 15.12.2011 after making enquiries

The Commissioner of Income TAx-IV, vs. M/s. Mahaveer Enterprises (India) Limited

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Housing Society admeasuring 829.25 sq.mtrs. was of the individual ownership of the petitioner Pannaben Niranjan Mehta and was her self-acquired property. Thus the petitioner was the holder of the land in question within the meaning of the said term as envisaged under the provisions of the Act. In the circumstances, as prescribed under Rule 5 of the Rules read

The Commissioner Of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s. PCL Intertech Lenhydro Consortium JV

Appeal is allowed, by setting the judgment of the trial

Bench: The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court Date Of Reservation 03/03/2023 Date Of Judgment 26/04/2023 Coram: The Hon'Ble Mr Justice G.Ilangovan Crl.A(Md)No.176 Of 2017 State Represented By The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras-104 (Crime No.13 Of 2003 Of V & A.C., Madurai) : Appellant/Complainant Vs. A.Arunagiri Personal Assistant To R.T.O (Rtd.,) Madurai North, Madurai. : Respondent/Complainant Prayer: Criminal Appeal Is Filed Under Section 378(1)(B) Of The Criminal Procedure Code, To Set Aside The Judgment Of Acquittal Of The Respondent Passed By The Special Court For Trial Of Cases Under The Prevention Of Corruption Act, Madurai, In Special Case No.15 Of 2011, Dated 17/11/2016. For Appellant : Mr.S.Ravi Additional Public Prosecutor For Respondent : Mr.K.M.Karunakaran Https://Www.Mhc.Tn.Gov.In/Judis

house property, which was constructed in 2000-2001 was valued at Rs.8,36,000/-. In whose name, the property was standing is not stated by the prosecution. But however, it was admitted by the accused himself stating that it is standing in the name of his family members. So from the value of Rs.66,000/-, the value of the sanitary