Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

3(31) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Prior to 2002, it was availing exemption as local authority under Section 10(20) of the IT Act and, therefore, was not exigible to income tax. After insertion of the explanation in Section 10(20), the expression ‘local authority’ was confined to Panchayats Municipality, Municipal Committee, District Board and Cantonment Board. Maritime

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

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-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

10. All the suit schedule properties are the self acquired properties of the grandfather of the plaintiffs, the defendants 1, 3 and 4 namely Panchanatham Pillai and their grandmother namely Kasiammal. Categorically contending that no pleading elaborating joint family business has been made and that the same does not figure out in the schedule of property, the learned counsel contended

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

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 - 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, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed

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

properties or combinations, whether by hand labor or machine. (Tara Agencies[5]). The word 'manufacture' has been defined in Halsbury's Laws of England, (3rd Ed. Vol. 29 p.23) as a manner of adapting natural material by the hands of man or by man-made devices or machinery, and as the making of an article or material by physical labour

The Commissioner of Income Tax [Central] vs. Akula Nageswara Rao

In the result, R.C.R.Nos.405/2017, 406/2017, 407/2017, 408/2017,

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

HOUSE, THUMPAMON, PATHANAMTHITTA 689 502. *6 JACOB P.C. AGED 53 YEARS, S/O RAHELAMMA RESIDING AT KOICKAL PUTHENVEEDU, KANNAMKODE, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA -691 523 * ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS R2 TO R6 ARE BEING LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED SOLE RESPONDENT, ARE IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2022 IN I.A.NO.2/2022. BY ADVS. SRI.S.AJITH PRABHAV No Advocate SRI.C.D.ANIL C.S.MANILAL S.NIDHEESH(K/1061/2007) KUNJAPPEASOW RAINGE(K/1346/2018) THIS

Commissioner of Income Taxd vs. M/sA.,Venjkatarao AND Others

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

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

houses are not really the objects, but were clauses stipulating the powers of the trustees. Having thus made a distinction between the objects and powers, the CIT (Appeals) proceeded to examine Section 11(4A) vis-à- vis Section 11(4) of the Act. He held that the amended provisions of Section 11(4A) would apply from the assessment year

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

3 entered into a leave and lisence agreement with EIH dated 25.04.1972 for 5665 sft. of Office space for a period of 50 years in Oberoi Sheraton Hotel at Bombay, on certain terms and conditions as mentioned in the said agreement. As per the said agreement, the assesse-company is to pay compensation for each month on or before

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

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

10 on resale, which was paid by the dealer as VAT while purchasing the goods from the vendors. However, in view of Section 19(20) inserted by way of amendment, he would now be entitled to ITC of Rs.9.50. This is clearly a provision which is made for the first time to the detriment of the dealers. Such a provision

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10 on resale, which was paid by the dealer as VAT while purchasing the goods from the vendors. However, in view of Section 19(20) inserted by way of amendment, he would now be entitled to ITC of Rs.9.50. This is clearly a provision which is made for the first time to the detriment of the dealers. Such a provision

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

Bench: The Learned

house property bearing the address E- 27, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi [the new asset]. 5. On 17.12.2012, a search and seizure operation was carried out under Section 132 of the Act on persons constituting the FIITJEE Group. The Assessee was also one of the persons searched. Thereafter, the AO issued a notice dated 13.08.2013 under Section 153A

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. L. SURYAKANTHAM, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

10) Whether a levy under Entry 52 List II, even if held to be in nature of a compensatory levy, must, on the principle of equivalence demonstrate that the value of the quantifiable benefit is represented by the costs incurred in procuring the facility/services (which costs in turn become the basis of reimbursement/recompense for the provider of the services/facilities

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