COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [TDS], HYDERABAD vs. M/S GHMC, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

penalty? 3. Whether, in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in failing to appreciate that regularization fee is allowable as business loss in computing the profits and gains under section 28 of IT Act?" 3. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the assessee is a public

Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

house property and whereas, the subject matter of the suit is ground floor Mulgi with corresponding first floor rooms. Thus, declaring the sale deeds in favour of the Appellants as void, is untenable and against the spirit of the above provision. 4.2. Section 52 does not operate to extinguish the title of the Appellants herein. It was specilically contended

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agrilcultural Market Committee

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

house property and whereas, the subject matter of the suit is ground floor Mulgi with corresponding first floor rooms. Thus, declaring the sale deeds in favour of the Appellants as void, is untenable and against the spirit of the above provision. 4.2. Section 52 does not operate to extinguish the title of the Appellants herein. It was specilically contended

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

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Nara Constructions,

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

property and to contract and by that name, sue and be sued. The object with which the National Housing Bank (herein after referred to as NHB/ Bank for short] was established is to provide long term finance for construction and/or purchase of residential housing or residential township-cum-housing development or slum clearance projects. The entire capital

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

M/s. Kausalya Shelters Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

penalty, the defaulting party is under an obligation to pay the amount stipulated and provided for under the contract. 70. It has been further submitted that contrary to the assertions of the petitioner, the respondent had squarely articulated the present claim before the Tribunal as „Balance Rent‟ for the remaining lock-in period instead of liquidated damages. He further contended

Commissioner of Income Tax-2, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,N.RAVI SHANKAR

house of the person in whose possession the document lies. Further non-payment of the stamp duty is not a criminal offence and as such the party in those possession the document lies cannot be compelled to produce the same or to forcefully pay the penalty. 14. Mr. Ashwani Mata, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits

Sampathirao Apparao vs. Income Tax Officer,

The appeals stand dismissed

property. The surrendered income included cash seized from the bank account of Sarup Chand. 5. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 28.04.2009 framed assessment for the assessment year 2007-08 qua both the appellants herein. The assessment order was also passed with respect to tax liability of Sarup Chand. No tax liability was found of Sarup Chand though

M/S.R.S.RANGADAS vs. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are disposed of, with no order as to costs

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

house in Mussoorie and, therefore, was not entitled to exemption u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961? ITA No. 405/2005 (3) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in taking the market value of the shares quoted at the stock exchange on 05.05.1998 as the basis for computing the capital gains under Section 48 of the Income

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

penalty and closure of the units. However it has tactfully avoided submitting the detail of violation detected by your good office committed by the industrial Units working in Naroda GIDC, i.e. located at Page 16 of 96 C/TAXAP/627/2015 JUDGMENT Naroda, Odhav and Vatva and penal action taken by your good office. (4) It is requested to please supply the detail

M\S.CHENNAKESAVA VIJAYAWADA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VIJAYAWAD

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

housing accommodation or for the purpose of planning, development or improvement of cities, towns and villages, or for both; or (g) any society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860)or under any law corresponding to that Act in force in any part of India; or (h) any trust; or (i) any university established or incorporated

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

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

House of parliament would not confer validity on a rule if it is made not in conformity with Section 40 of the Act . It would appear from the observation on pages 304 to 306 of the Sixth Edition of Craies on Statute, Law that there are three kinds of laying:- (i) Laying without further procedure; (ii) Laying subject to negative

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

House of parliament would not confer validity on a rule if it is made not in conformity with Section 40 of the Act . It would appear from the observation on pages 304 to 306 of the Sixth Edition of Craies on Statute, Law that there are three kinds of laying:- (i) Laying without further procedure; (ii) Laying subject to negative

M/s Durga Granites, vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1,

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

House No. 292, Near UMS Pinargaria, Village Pinargaria, P.O. Pinargaria, P.S. Shikaripara, District Dumka, PIN 816103, (Jharkhand). ..........Petitioner. 2025:JHHC:29619-DB 56 -Versus- 1. 1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Secretary, Department of Industries, Mines and Geology, having its office at Yojna Bhawan, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi- 834 002. 2. The Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government

The Commissioner of Income tax vs. M/s.V.Satyanrayana AND Others

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

penalty (CIT v Kirkend Coal Company[4]). Asst. Collector of Central Excise v National Tobacco Co. Ltd[5] is a case which arose under the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It was argued that there would be no ‘levy’ in the eye of law unless there is ‘assessment’ for the purpose of determining the value of excisable goods. While observing that

Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajahmundry. vs. m/s Ganesh Arrack Contractors,

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

penalty (CIT v Kirkend Coal Company[4]). Asst. Collector of Central Excise v National Tobacco Co. Ltd[5] is a case which arose under the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It was argued that there would be no ‘levy’ in the eye of law unless there is ‘assessment’ for the purpose of determining the value of excisable goods. While observing that

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s GRK Prasad AND others

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

penalty (CIT v Kirkend Coal Company[4]). Asst. Collector of Central Excise v National Tobacco Co. Ltd[5] is a case which arose under the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It was argued that there would be no ‘levy’ in the eye of law unless there is ‘assessment’ for the purpose of determining the value of excisable goods. While observing that