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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1 City Rajpur- Hirpur T.P. Scheme No.4, Final Plot No.73 739.12 sq. mts. On lease for 99 years 2 Thaltej 46 829.28 sq. mts. As member of society 3 Khadia 2695 18.50 sq. mts. Residential house. By succession 4 Khadia 2682 99 sq. mts. Residential house. By succession 5 Paldi Samasth Brahmashatriy a Society Sub-plot No.88 Bunglow No.89

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

5) or in breach of Section 13(1) generally and Section 13(1)(d) specifically. ANALYSIS OF PROVISIONS OF AMC ACT AMC Act provides for establishment of notified market areas/yards for purchase and sale of agricultural produce and livestock and for better regulation of such markets. Various Provincial States even in pre- independent period had such marketing legislation with

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

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

5) or in breach of Section 13(1) generally and Section 13(1)(d) specifically. ANALYSIS OF PROVISIONS OF AMC ACT AMC Act provides for establishment of notified market areas/yards for purchase and sale of agricultural produce and livestock and for better regulation of such markets. Various Provincial States even in pre- independent period had such marketing legislation with

COMM.OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE vs. NAVABHARAT ENTERPRISES HYD

In the result, Income Tax Appeal No

Bench: This Court & Hence Both Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Decided By This Common Judgment. 2. Sri Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Rahul Agarwal, Advocate Have Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Sri Manish Goel, Advocate Has Put In Appearance On Behalf Of Revenue. 3. Revenue'S Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law:- (1)Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Tribunal Was Right In Holding That Authorization For Search

1,08,195/- (c) Unreconciled stock of Supari Rs. 70,99,839/- (d) Unexplained investment in cloth Rs. 5,04,000/- (e) Unexplained investment in trucks Rs. 10,50,000/- (f) Income of the assessee from 1.4.96 to 28.11.1996 Rs. 38,70,219/- (g) Unexplained investment in house property No. 133/225 Rs. 3,40,000/- 16. Assessee preferred appeal against

Commissioner of Income Tax- IT and TP vs. M/s. Louis Berger International Inc.,

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

1) to Rule 3 is not applicable and transaction value is determined in terms of Rules 4 to 9 of the 2007 Rules. 16.6. The proper officer can raise doubts as to the truth or accuracy Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:27.11.2024 18:20:25 Signature Not Verified CUSAA 26/2022 & connected matters Page

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s. Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

1) to Rule 3 is not applicable and transaction value is determined in terms of Rules 4 to 9 of the 2007 Rules. 16.6. The proper officer can raise doubts as to the truth or accuracy Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:27.11.2024 18:20:25 Signature Not Verified CUSAA 26/2022 & connected matters Page

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. M/s Pokarna Limited

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

section 80-IA(4)(iii). 17. The Apex Court had an occasion to consider the question whether rental income from shops and stalls to constitute income from house property or business income under the old Act. In the case of East India Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd. –vs- - - 31 Commissioner of Income Tax reported

The commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s Lanco Kondapalli Power (P) Ltd

House, Nhava Sheva. 5. Commissioner of Customs, Office of the Commissioner of Customs (NS-1), Jawaharlal Nehru Customs House, Nhava Sheva. …Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2091 OF 2022 Balkrishna Industries Ltd, Page 108 of 198 22nd March 2024 Saurer Textile Solutions Pvt Ltd v The State of Maharashtra & Ors & Connected Writ Petitions 1-2-oswp-1494-2023-J+.docx

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Section 13 which provides for Rule making power of the Central Government in respect of minerals. Section 13 subsection (1) WP(C). 11249/2010 & other contd cases. -:88:- and Section 13 Sub-section (2) in so far as relevant in the present case are as follows: “13. Power of Central Government to make Rules in respect of minerals.-- (1) The Central

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

5) of this section, it is clear that it cannot be said to be acquired at the expense of the patrimony of ancestral estate. Such property is, therefore, self- acquired in the technical sense of the term. As property described in cl (4), it is a question of fact as to whether it constitutes self- acquired property

ANDHRA BANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

5 Bonds and had shown Rs.195.94 crores as the amount outstanding against M/s FGFSL as on 3 1-3- 1993 in its balance sheet. As an alternative the assessee prayed that in case the Court came to the conclusion that the appellalt was not entitled to the declaration of ownership of the aforesaid securities and tronds, M/s FGFSL might

ANDHRA BANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD,. HYDERABAD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, HYDERABAD

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

5 Bonds and had shown Rs.195.94 crores as the amount outstanding against M/s FGFSL as on 3 1-3- 1993 in its balance sheet. As an alternative the assessee prayed that in case the Court came to the conclusion that the appellalt was not entitled to the declaration of ownership of the aforesaid securities and tronds, M/s FGFSL might

ANDHRA BANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, HYDERABAD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, HYDERABAD

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

5 Bonds and had shown Rs.195.94 crores as the amount outstanding against M/s FGFSL as on 3 1-3- 1993 in its balance sheet. As an alternative the assessee prayed that in case the Court came to the conclusion that the appellalt was not entitled to the declaration of ownership of the aforesaid securities and tronds, M/s FGFSL might

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

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

Section- 94(3) of the JVAT Act, to contend inter-alia that since the rules are required to be placed before the State Legislature, the same by itself necessarily implies that the Rule making power conferred upon the State Government enabled the State Government to frame rules with retrospective effect. 43. In our opinion, the said contention raised

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section- 94(3) of the JVAT Act, to contend inter-alia that since the rules are required to be placed before the State Legislature, the same by itself necessarily implies that the Rule making power conferred upon the State Government enabled the State Government to frame rules with retrospective effect. 43. In our opinion, the said contention raised

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/s Padmapriya Real Estates AND Financiers

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment passed by

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

5(1)(e) is complete, unless the accused is able to account for such resources or property. In other words, only after the prosecution has proved the required ingredients, the burden of satisfactorily accounting for the possession of such resources or property shifts to the accused.” 53. The investigating officer has also admitted this fact that he had not investigated

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), HYDERABAD vs. SMT.M.VIJAYA, HYDERABAD

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Property Mgmt Office Basement, Grand Central Mall, Nana Mauva Main [2025:RJ-JP:25721] (34 of 55) [COAP-21/2016] 2. 3. 4. Road, Rajnagar Cross Road, Rajkot, Gujrat. Ved Prakash Arya s/o Satyapal Arya, Flat No. 701, Gladioli Chs, Off yari Roadversova, andheri, West Mumbai 400058 Jateen madan lal Gupta s/o roop Narayan gupta, 1, Rivera-30 Bunglows