The Commissioner of Income Tax - I vs. M/s. BBL Foods (Earlier Amber Biscuits P Ltd.)

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1944 MAT.APPEAL NO. 317 OF 2012 AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 31.12.2011 IN OP.NO.775/2006 AND ANOTHER CONNECTED CASES OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR APPELLANT/PETITIONER: C.D.MINI, AGED 44 YEARS D/O.(LATE) DEVASSY, CHELLAKKUDAM HOUSE, MALA, PALLIPPURAM.P.O, PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

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

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

nature of its dealings with its property, it is possible to say on which side the operations fall and to what head the income is to be assigned." 9. After applying the aforesaid principle to the facts, which were there before the court, it came to the conclusion that income had to be treated as income from business

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

justice. The plaintiff's claim that the suit property is joint family property of Shanmugam Pillai, and that each plaintiff is entitled to 8/35th share is not correct. These suit properties are to be considered as the personal properties of Shanmugam Pillai. As Shanmugam Pillai died intestate in the year 2006, by virtue of the Indian Succession Act 30/1956, amended

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

Appeal stands dismissed

nature of the way. The attempt of defendants was resisted by the plaintiffs. 2.2. The defendants resisted the claim of the plaintiffs. They pleaded that the plaintiffs had suppressed material facts from the knowledge of the Court. The description of the way, its length, width etc., as stated in the plaint is against the truth. There is a R.S.A Nos.290

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

nature of opening of a door as an access to the tenant’s adjoining premises. 5. Admittedly, no notice under Section 15(2) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (‘Rent Act’) was issued to the tenant calling upon him to pay the arrears of rent. The suit on the ground of default in payment of rent, is therefore

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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Justice for appropriate orders.” 4.1 The learned counsel appearing for the assessee and the Revenue, after appreciating the scope, purpose and object of consideration by the Full Bench of this Court, have stated that the Full Bench needs to consider the correctness or otherwise of ITA Nos.11/2008, 12/2008, 279/2010, 282/2010, 292/2010 -11- the view taken by a Division Bench

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

natural justice and fair play. 31. We have already noted in the earlier part of the judgment that although there is some difference in the language employed by the three Rent Control Acts under consideration which provide for revisional jurisdiction but, in our view, the revisional power of the High Court under these Acts is substantially similar and broadly such

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI PINNAMANENI PARANDHAMAIAH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 13.04.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred

M/s. PLL-Suncon Joint Venture vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Justice P.K. Bahri (retired judge of this court) by order of this court dated 01.10.1999. In fact, parties also agreed that the disputes with regard to the claim of the appellant of share in residential house No. B-5/13, Safrdarjung Enclave, New Delhi be also referred to arbitration. The appellant filed one statement of claim in respect

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

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

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR R.V. EASWAR, J: (OPEN COURT) CM 8651/2012 In view of the averments made in the application the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Application is disposed of. ITA 319/2012 On 30.08.2012 the following substantial question of law was framed by this Court : “Was the Tribunal correct in holding that the rent received by the appellant

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest? A.K. SIKRI, J. (Oral) 1. One common issue arises in these appeals except in ITA No.363/2007. However, even in that appeal shadow of earlier appeals

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

Bench: The Learned

JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA VIBHU BAKHRU, J. (Oral) 1. The Revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [Act] impugning an order dated 25.09.2024 [impugned order] passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT] in ITA No.3426/Del/2019 in respect of Assessment Year [AY] 2011-12. 2. The impugned order is a common order passed

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.

JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA 1. This suit/petition has been filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under Sections 14(2), 17 and 29 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟) seeking a direction for the Arbitrator to file the Arbitral Record and the Arbitral Award dated 25.01.2011 before this Court and making the same a Rule of Court, alongwith decree

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. The present appeals by the revenue are directed against a common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 5th April, 2005 in seven appeals (by the revenue) and cross objections preferred by the assessee. The following questions of law were framed for consideration of this Court: (i) Whether the ITAT was, in the facts

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