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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

29 of 76 C/LPA/94/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2021 RAVJIBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL SINCE DECD. THR'HEIRS V/s ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY U.L.C. under Section 6 of the Act, that the land in question situated in Van Shree Cooperative Housing Society admeasuring 829.25 sq.mtrs. was of the individual ownership of the petitioner Pannaben Niranjan Mehta and was her self-acquired property. Thus

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 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

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.

housing on the plot in question. This letter is again addressed in favour of the respondent no.1 as it is the owner of the land. CS(OS) No.486/2011 Page 10 25. Much reliance has been placed by respondent no.2 on the letter dated 19.03.1986 addressed by the petitioner to the L&DO calling upon L& DO to keep the terms

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

29 of the order and was of the opinion that as the petitioner is not doing any practice as Doctor in Guntur Town, though the respondent tenant admitted to the fact that petitioner used to stay for 10 days 5 in a month in the third floor of the premises. The reason for disbelieving is that the petitioner

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

Bench: The Learned

Section 54F of the Act on the ground that she holds more than one residential unit. 27. We also find that there has been no failure on the part of the Assessee to truly and fairly disclose all the material facts in her return. The Assessee had fairly disclosed about the sale of the original asset, in respect of which

The Commissioner of Income Tax V vs. M/s.Orchem Industries

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 29 of the Bombay Rent Act does not permit it to be done. Shall it then set aside the decisions of the Courts below even though there are no errors of law therein and remand the suit for a fresh trial on new and subsequent events producing in its wake a fresh decree, a fresh appeal and a fresh

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

29'05'2001' preferred agarnst the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) of lncome-Tax and commissioner of lncome-Tax (Appeals) PAN/GIR No.A-2lCC-lll/Hyderabad, dated 12-03-1999.) Between: Andhra Bank Financial Services Ltd, Hyderabad I Floor, 4-5-1 to 23, Andhra Bank Buildings, Sultan Bazar, Koti, Hyderabad - 195 ..,APPELLANT AND The Commissioner of lncome Tax-1, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

29'05'2001' preferred agarnst the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) of lncome-Tax and commissioner of lncome-Tax (Appeals) PAN/GIR No.A-2lCC-lll/Hyderabad, dated 12-03-1999.) Between: Andhra Bank Financial Services Ltd, Hyderabad I Floor, 4-5-1 to 23, Andhra Bank Buildings, Sultan Bazar, Koti, Hyderabad - 195 ..,APPELLANT AND The Commissioner of lncome Tax-1, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

29'05'2001' preferred agarnst the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) of lncome-Tax and commissioner of lncome-Tax (Appeals) PAN/GIR No.A-2lCC-lll/Hyderabad, dated 12-03-1999.) Between: Andhra Bank Financial Services Ltd, Hyderabad I Floor, 4-5-1 to 23, Andhra Bank Buildings, Sultan Bazar, Koti, Hyderabad - 195 ..,APPELLANT AND The Commissioner of lncome Tax-1, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

HOUSING PVT.LTD ...... Respondent Through: Mr. M.S. Syali, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arta Trana Panda and Ms. Gargi Sethee, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 5 of 36 J U D G M E N T Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.: 1. These are 11 appeals under Section 260-A of the Income

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

HOUSING PVT.LTD ...... Respondent Through: Mr. M.S. Syali, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arta Trana Panda and Ms. Gargi Sethee, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 5 of 36 J U D G M E N T Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.: 1. These are 11 appeals under Section 260-A 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

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

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

house or in shade and after performing several operations, such as weeding, watering, manuring, etc., they are made ready for sale as plants all these questions would be agricultural operations all this involves human skill and effort. Thus, the plants sold bY the assessee in pots were the result of primary as well as subsequent operations

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 of 3rd defendant. Thus, the direct execution of the sale deed Ex.P1 is spoken by PW1 and PW6 but the legal formality of registration was not effected. 82. The features of valid contract as mentioned in Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 are offer and acceptance, legal relationship, contractual capacity, competency of the parties to enter into

Commissioner of Income tax-VI vs. M/s. Narpat Girji Constructions,

The appeal is allowed

10 - OSA No. 19 of 2015 LESSEE. Upon such conveyance conferring absolute title to the LESSEE, the LESSOR shall permit the right of passage to the staff members of the LESSEE, who may reside in the staff quarters of the LESSEE located within the residential colony premises of the LESSOR. The stamp duty, registration charges and other expenses

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

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

Appeal is partly allowed

10 property also. During his cross-examination, it is elicited that defendant no.1 was doing photo frame business and from said income he provided education to all children and performed their marriage. It is also elicited that defendant no.1 and his two brothers had effected partition in joint family property and that defendant no.1 purchased share allotted to his brother