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

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

22. (2007) 295 ITR 561 : (2007) 14 SCC 704 23. (2009) 308 ITR 380 (MP) 24. (2009) 308 ITR 401 (MP) 25. AIR 2004 SC 86 26. (1944) 1 All ER 119 27. 1909 AC 323 28. AIR 1960 SC 1203 29. AIR 1961 SC 343 30. (2006) 285 ITR 237 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO

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

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

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 or not. In practice, the expression

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

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

22 of the Act or the said income being composite income arising from part exploitation of shops and establishment which are sub-leased as commercial assets and the services which are rendered to the shopkeepers can be treated as income arising from business falling under Section 28 of the Act? II. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

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

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.

house was unreasonable as compared to the market rent. On the same day, the respondent No.1 addressed the second letter dated 17.05.1986 enclosing therewith the list of properties from the property broker. The petitioner vide its letter dated 21.05.1986 replied to the above letter seeking confirmation from the respondents to the effect that they have seen those properties and found

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

Bench: The Learned

22. It is also relevant to refer to the decision of the coordinate bench of this court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gita Duggal: 2013 SCC OnLine Del 752 where this court has held as under: - “11. There could also be another angle. Section 54/54F uses the expression “a residential house”. The expression used is not “a residential unit

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

10. Thc asscssee \r'as onc o[ thc eflcctccl partit:s o[' I992 Scam and had advanced mone-v to M/s FGFSL. onc of the notified parties ard it was for:nd thert somc o[ tl-t t: securities delivered by M/s FGFSL werc forgcd/ fabricated. On 3 8-1992 the assessee filed a Misc. Petition No.6 bcfore the Special

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

10. Thc asscssee \r'as onc o[ thc eflcctccl partit:s o[' I992 Scam and had advanced mone-v to M/s FGFSL. onc of the notified parties ard it was for:nd thert somc o[ tl-t t: securities delivered by M/s FGFSL werc forgcd/ fabricated. On 3 8-1992 the assessee filed a Misc. Petition No.6 bcfore the Special

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

10. Thc asscssee \r'as onc o[ thc eflcctccl partit:s o[' I992 Scam and had advanced mone-v to M/s FGFSL. onc of the notified parties ard it was for:nd thert somc o[ tl-t t: securities delivered by M/s FGFSL werc forgcd/ fabricated. On 3 8-1992 the assessee filed a Misc. Petition No.6 bcfore the Special

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

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

10 of 16 Meetings were held and the opinion expressed then was that the respondent-assessee bank would be eligible for deduction. Legal opinion was also taken from a Chartered Accountant. 14. The respondent-assessee bank, in the return of income filed by them, had taken care and caution to make a specific disclosure in respect of deduction claimed under

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

22. Ownership of property and leasing it out may be done as a part of business, or it may be done as landowner. Whether it is the one or the other must necessarily depend upon the object with which the Act is done. It is not that no company can own property and enjoy it as property, whether by itself

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

10. Section 23 of the Act explains “annual letting value,” for purposes, of income from house property. The said provision reads as follows: ITAs 166, 168, 243, 778/2006 Page 8 “Section 23. ANNUAL VALUE HOW DETERMINED. (1) For the purposes of section 22

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

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 aforesaid order of assessment which has been partly allowed by Tribunal vide impugned judgment. Both parties have filed respective appeals to the extent order of Tribunal

M/S.A.G.BIOTECH LABORATORIES [INDIA] LTD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

section 10 of the t('. 4.3 Applrcability: This amendment has been made a) tlicable with effect from 1" Aprtl, 2009 and shall according t apply for assessment year 2009- 1O and subsequent assessment ears." 2L. It would also be relevant to take note of a fe\, judgments on the subject matter. Firstly, the Madras High CoLrrt in the case

SRI B.DHANUNJAYARAO vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

house was constructed only for the purpose of pledging with the bank is for fetching and to derive a conclusion that there is an advantage to the company in advalcing such loan. 4.e. Further, the assessee also submitted by way of cross-objections to the appeal frled by the Revenue, wherein the Tribunal had held that the payments made

SRI B.DHANUNJAYARAO vs. DY.COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

house was constructed only for the purpose of pledging with the bank is for fetching and to derive a conclusion that there is an advantage to the company in advalcing such loan. 4.e. Further, the assessee also submitted by way of cross-objections to the appeal frled by the Revenue, wherein the Tribunal had held that the payments made