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

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

Bench: The Learned

property was taken over on 02.09.2014, but not registered as 100% payment is made to the seller only in financial year 2013-14.” 19. It is clear from the above that separate floors of the singular house bearing the address D-6/5 Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, were purchased by the family members of the Assessee. The fact that different

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. The Sind Coop. Urban Bank Ltd.,

The appeal of the State is allowed and the appeal of the applicants

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

HOUSE,, THAMARACHAL, KIZHAKKAMBALAM P.O., PIN-683 562,, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4 PREETHA THULASEEDHARAN PILLAI, AGED 38 YEARS, W/O. THULASEEDHARAN PILLAI,, REMYA NIVAS, KANNIMELTHERIYIL, PATTAZHI VILLAGE,, PADMANABHAPURAM, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF, ATTORNEY MR. ANTONY M.P., AGED 40 YEARS,, MANIYACHER BY ADVS.SRI.G.G.MANOJ SRI.P.M.BENZIR P.VISWANATHAN (SR.)(K/000283/1986) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 CISTPDOAM PF VESTED FPRESTS (EFL), FOREST HEAD QUARTERS, VANALAKSHMI, VAZHUTHACAUDU,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

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

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

exemption from paying income tax. Section 10(29) was omitted with effect from 01.04.2003 by reason of the amendment. By the same amendment, an Explanation was inserted below Section 10(20) and, thereafter, Section 10(20) reads as under. 10(20) the income of a local authority which is chargeable under the head ‘Income from house property

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

exemption from paying income tax. Section 10(29) was omitted with effect from 01.04.2003 by reason of the amendment. By the same amendment, an Explanation was inserted below Section 10(20) and, thereafter, Section 10(20) reads as under. 10(20) the income of a local authority which is chargeable under the head ‘Income from house property

Commissioner of Income Taxd vs. M/sA.,Venjkatarao AND Others

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

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

property (i.e. the business undertaking) being held under trust in accordance with Section 11(4) of the Act. He accordingly directed the assessing officer to allow the exemption. ITA 309/2003,417/2003,18/2004,722/2007,770/2011,1050/2011 and 1051/2011 Page 4 of 20 6. In respect of the assessment year 1992-93, which is the first assessment year with which

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 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

K. Ranjeet Mohan, vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax,

exemption was given in the original assessment order dated 4.2.2006 and there was no evidence on record that the same was transferred in the work contract. iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in not addressing itself on the application given under section 12-B, of the U.P. Trade

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.

house was unreasonable as compared to the market rent. On the same day, the respondent No.1 addressed the second letter dated 17.05.1986 enclosing therewith the list of properties from the property broker. The petitioner vide its letter dated 21.05.1986 replied to the above letter seeking confirmation from the respondents to the effect that they have seen those properties and found

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-I vs. Ascend Telecom Infrastructure Private Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

house property, interest on securities, capital gains, or other sources, the word `income’ should be understood in its Date of Judgment 14-08-2018 I.T.A.No.346/2015 Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s Academy of Liberal Education 17/21 commercial sense, i.e., book income, after adding back any appropriations or applications thereof towards the purposes of the trust or otherwise

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. The Andhra Bank Employees Co.Operative Bank Limited

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

house property is not covered under income from banking business. Our attention has also been invited to Totgars’ Cooperative Sale Society Limited v ITO[20] in support of his contentions. As observed by the Supreme Court therein the said decision was confined to the facts of the said case and their Lordships were not dealing with cases relating to cooperative

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/s. The A.P.Vardhaman(Mahila)Cooperative Urban

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

house property is not covered under income from banking business. Our attention has also been invited to Totgars’ Cooperative Sale Society Limited v ITO[20] in support of his contentions. As observed by the Supreme Court therein the said decision was confined to the facts of the said case and their Lordships were not dealing with cases relating to cooperative

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S The A.P.Mahesh Coop. Urban Bank Ltd,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

house property is not covered under income from banking business. Our attention has also been invited to Totgars’ Cooperative Sale Society Limited v ITO[20] in support of his contentions. As observed by the Supreme Court therein the said decision was confined to the facts of the said case and their Lordships were not dealing with cases relating to cooperative

Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. The Agrasen Coop. Urban Bank Ltd.,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

house property is not covered under income from banking business. Our attention has also been invited to Totgars’ Cooperative Sale Society Limited v ITO[20] in support of his contentions. As observed by the Supreme Court therein the said decision was confined to the facts of the said case and their Lordships were not dealing with cases relating to cooperative