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

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

house property could be changed to one from trade or business merely because the hiring is inclusive of certain additional services like lighting, water supply, sanitation etc as referred to in the lease agreement with tenants noted earlier. In this regard, appellant’s reliance on the ratio of decision in Karnani Properties (82 ITR 547) was somewhat misplaced since

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

established by the owner of the offending vehicle - that the vehicle was not only duly insured but also that it was driven by an authorised person having a valid driving license. Without disclosing the name of the driver in the 21 fa963.05 Shantaram Vs Janabai & Ors Written Statement or producing any evidence to substantiate the fact that the copy

M/s Vodafone Essar South Ltd., vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income tax,

permanently occupying the said premises.   Learned APP further submitted that there is sufficient evidence   against   accused   no.11   Smt.Sunita   Gainar   (Revision Application   No.313   of   2013).     Opportunity   was   given   during investigation to accused no.11 to explain her source of income.  After purchase of house by accused no.11 and her mother, the same was sold to   accused no.2 within three years

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

permanently in the suit property or wants to use as his residence in future. Thus, the intentions are malafide and purposeless. Though the petitioner has stated that for the purposes of setting up of his business and appropriate industry he had acquired a plot of land measuring 2100 sq. mtrs. from Noida Authority, however no details of the said plot

The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Vaishnavi Educational Society

In the result, this Cross Objection is allowed and the suit is

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

permanent prohibitory injunction against the Owners from trespassing into the properties covered by RFA 554/15 & CON. CASES 11 the Sale Deeds, asserting that the said Deeds are valid and themselves to be in its possession. 5. The afore three suits were taken to trial jointly, and the Trial Court marked Exhibits A1 to A30 on the side of the Owners

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptons) vs. Kalinga Cultural Trust

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice B.M.Shyam Prasad Regular Second Appeal No. 627 Of 2016 (Inj) Between:

House Building Society Limited (for short, ‘the Society’) allotted the subject property to the deceased Smt.Vasantha on 30.3.1991 and the Society absolutely conveyed title thereto in favour of Smt.Vasantha under the Sale Deed dated 3.5.1993. The dispute between the appellant and the respondent is because the respondent/ plaintiff contends that after the demise of Smt.Vasantha, her husband Sri Rangaprasad

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

house and developed friendship with her and gradually developed interest in looking after the welfare of 1st defendant and catering to her needs. During that time, R. Devdas and Jude Devdas used to call upon 1st defendant to sign some papers stating that the papers are necessary to look after Tataguni estate properly and also to look after the paintings

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

Commissioner of Income Tax-V, vs. M/s.Sirveen Control Systems

Appeal is partly allowed

permanent injunction against alienation of suit schedule properties. Though, trial Court granted 1/6th share in ‘A’ schedule property to each of plaintiffs, relief insofar as ‘B’ schedule property was denied despite defendant 16 no.3 examined as DW.2 clearly admitting in his cross-examination that plaintiffs also had share in ‘B’ schedule property. It was also contended that ‘A’ schedule property

The Commissioner of Income -Tax - III, vs. Shri Taher Ali

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

House Rates Control Act, 1947 3 / 79 CRA-322-08gr (for short, 'Act'). The leaned trial Judge also accepted grounds under section 13(1)(e) (unlawful subletting by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2) and 13(1)(k) (non user of the suit premises by defendant no.1-tenant). The Appellate Court decreed the suit only under section

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 towards loss of managerial skills can be awarded, and explained the concept of just compensation at para Nos.11 and 12, which reads as under: "11. At the outset, it is pertinent to reiterate the concept of 'just' compensation under Section

THEE COMMSSR.OF INCOME TAX.HYD. vs. CHALLA SHANKER REDDY.HYD.

Bench: L.NARASIMHA REDDY,T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

permanent frirect:rs. The appellant No.1/Image Deve.ope :s filed Form No.23 on 09.10. 1!)96 appointing the appellant No.2/C.V Rao as the Managing Dire(rtor. of the appellant No.l/Image Developers and the said Form No.23 rvr; s registered with the Registrar of Ocmpanies on 14.o2.1997. 29. On 24 .1'. .)993, the appellant No.2/C.V. Rao caused the respondents

COMMR.OF I.T. RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/S.NARAYANA CHOWDARYAND ORS KAKINADA

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

permanent frirect:rs. The appellant No.1/Image Deve.ope :s filed Form No.23 on 09.10. 1!)96 appointing the appellant No.2/C.V Rao as the Managing Dire(rtor. of the appellant No.l/Image Developers and the said Form No.23 rvr; s registered with the Registrar of Ocmpanies on 14.o2.1997. 29. On 24 .1'. .)993, the appellant No.2/C.V. Rao caused the respondents

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - (TDS), vs. M/s. Suman Chit Funds (P) Ltd.,

permanent frirect:rs. The appellant No.1/Image Deve.ope :s filed Form No.23 on 09.10. 1!)96 appointing the appellant No.2/C.V Rao as the Managing Dire(rtor. of the appellant No.l/Image Developers and the said Form No.23 rvr; s registered with the Registrar of Ocmpanies on 14.o2.1997. 29. On 24 .1'. .)993, the appellant No.2/C.V. Rao caused the respondents

Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

establishes that time was never essence of the contract. On the other hand, Respondents 1 to 11 and 14 sold the plaint scheduled property to Respondents 1.2 and 13 during pendency of the suit. 5.4. The Lower Court failed to see that appellants agreed to purchase the plaint scheduled property at Rs.6,OOO/-Sq. ft in 1997 '*,hereas respondents

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agrilcultural Market Committee

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

establishes that time was never essence of the contract. On the other hand, Respondents 1 to 11 and 14 sold the plaint scheduled property to Respondents 1.2 and 13 during pendency of the suit. 5.4. The Lower Court failed to see that appellants agreed to purchase the plaint scheduled property at Rs.6,OOO/-Sq. ft in 1997 '*,hereas respondents

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. M/S GOLDEN STAR FACILITIES AND SERVICES PVT LTD., HYD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

permanent residents and property holders in Ayyampuzha village, Ernakulam district. They are allegedly aggrieved by the quarrying operations carried out by the 9th respondent, managing partner of M/s. Star Granites, in the properties, which was primarily assigned in favour of the predecessors in interest of the properties under the Rules, 1964, evident WP(C). 11249/2010 & other contd cases. -:68:- from