Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

13. Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act provides that there shall be formed for the whole of the State a fund to be called the ‘Central Market Fund’. Every market committee is required to contribute 10 per cent of its annual income to the Central Market Fund and the contribution so paid shall be placed

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 13

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s Pokarna Limited

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

10. Section 22 of the Act deals with income from House property which reads as under: Income from house property. 22. The annual value of property consisting of any buildings or lands appurtenant thereto of which the assessee is the owner, other than such portions of such property as he may occupy for the purposes of any business or profession

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX vs. M/S V.SATAYANARAYANA

The appeal is allowed

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

house at 7 o'clock in the evening. The girl was unconscious during the day. PW 2 told her husband as to what had happened to their daughter. The police station was at a distance of 15 km. According to the testimony of PW 1 no mode of conveyance was available. The police was reported to the next day morning

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10. During subsistence of their marriage, several properties were acquired by them jointly and severally and after their separation, Sri.Joy filed O.P No.559 of 2006 for declaration with respect to item No.1 to 17 properties as his own and Smt.Mini filed O.P No.775 of 2006 claiming absolute right with respect to 'A' to 'P' schedule immovable properties and 'Q' schedule

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/s. Murala Venkateswara Rao AND others

Appeal is dismissed,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

properties M.Os.1 to 7. During the cross-examination of P.W1, Exs.DI and 7. D2, through P.W5, Exs.D3 and D4, through P.W6, Exs.DS and D6 and through P.W8, Exs.D7 and D8 were marked. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused officer was examined under Section 313 CrPC to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence

The Commissioner of Income Tax III, vs. Sri Ravi Sanghi

The appeal is allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10,60,561/-) towards compensation for licence fees (as per profit and loss accounts) amounting to Rs. 13,90,260/-) to be rental income under the head “income from house property” and after allowing deduction under Section

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Dr. T.Ravi Kumar

The appeal is disposed of

10) of the Act in the light of the fact whether the assessee had applied the income for charitable purposes. However, the Tribunal held that Section 13(8) of the Act was incorporated with effect from 01.04.2009 and by virtue of Section 13(8) of the Act, the income of the assessee from developing housing project by virtue of Section

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

10 and 11 as under: “9. In order to prove the charge under Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, 1988, the prosecution must prove the following ingredients, namely (1) the prosecution must prove that the accused is a public servant, (2) the nature and extent of the pecuniary resources or property which are found in his possession

The Director of Income Tax-(Exemptions), vs. Vasavi Academy of Education

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

13(1)(e) of the PC Act. Analyzing the provision of clause-(b) of section 3 of the PC Act, it has been held that the provision encompasses the offences committed in conspiracy with others or by abetment of "any of the offences" punishable under the P.C. Act and the abettor or the conspirator can be delinked from the delinquent

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

10,00,000 (Ten Lacs.) Equity shares of Rs. 10/-(Rupees Ten only) each. IX. True accounts shall be kept of all sums of money received and expended by the Company and the matters in respect of which such receipts and expenditure take place and of the property, credits and liabilities of the Company; and, subject to any reasonable restrictions

DIR OF INCOME TAX [INTERNATIONAL TAXATION], HYDERABAD vs. NIMMAGADDA PRASAD, SECUNDERABAD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Property is required for personal occupation of the Appellant/Petitioner? 3) Whether there are reasons to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur in RCC.No.13/2008 Dt.26.07.2010? 11. The Rent Control Appellate Authority had considered issues 1 and 2 jointly and held both the issues against the petitioner. Issue No.3

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

Bench: The Learned

property bearing address D-6/5, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. According to the AO, the basement and second floor were required to be considered as two separate residential houses. 13. In terms of clause (i) to the proviso to Section 54F(1) of the act, the said section would not apply if the assessee owned more than one residential house

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

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. To succeed in the eviction petition, the petitioner was required to prove the three requirements envisaged in Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act i.e. that he was the owner/landlord of the premises, that the premises was required RC.REV. 392/2013 & 394/2013 Page 16 of 46 bonafidely

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. Bheema Wines

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. The case against R.C.Sabharwal is that he was found in possession of the total assets worth Rs.3,10,58,324/- for the check period beginning from 20.08.1968 till 23.08.1995. The assets which were disproportionate to his known sources of the income were Rs.2,05,63,641/-. His wife's salary during

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.

property in favour of respondent no.3 and 5% of the proposed total constructed area in favour of respondent no.2. 6. The disputes between the parties arose as the respondent no.1 cancelled the Collaboration Agreement vide its notice dated 14.06.1986. 7. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 20 of the Act seeking appointment of an Arbitrator and reference of disputes

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 13 confers overriding effect on the Special Court Act. It says that provisions of the Special Court Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act or in any decree or order

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 13 confers overriding effect on the Special Court Act. It says that provisions of the Special Court Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act or in any decree or order