Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

10(20) is altogether different from the benefit granted by the tax machinery subject to statutory conditionalities contained in Sections 11 to 13 of the IT Act. (iii) Whether AMC is entitled to status of charitable institution The income derived from property held under trust wholly or partly for charitable or religious purposes shall not be included in the total

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 14, which are mutually exclusive and determine the heads under which the income is to be assessed. The objects in the memorandum of the company cannot determine the heads of income under which the income is to be taxed. The lease rental income from any property of which an assessee is a beneficial owner shall be liable

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

housing loans to them, without making proper pre-sanction verifications, and accepting forged income tax returns, and without ensuring the end use of funds. Sri.Joy was found guilty and convicted along with the other accused, and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years each and fine, under Section 120B read with Sections

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

34, the following section insert:— “34A. Person claiming under document for sale of property also to sign document.—Subject to the provisions of this Act, no document for sale of peoperty shall be registered under this Act, unless the person claiming under the document has also signed such document.”. [Vide Tamil Nadu Act 28 of 2000]. 35. Procedure on admission

M/s. PLL-Suncon Joint Venture vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

house No. B-5/13, Safdarjung Enclave is concerned, he claimed 1/4th share each, i.e. himself, Arun Kapoor, Lalit Kapoor & Anil Kapoor. FAO(OS) 373/2011 Page 4 of 44 The learned arbitrator made an interim award on 01.06.2005; ultimately he made and announced his final award on 23.04.2009. These became the subject matter of challenge in proceedings under Section 34

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.

34 performance should in the facts of a case be granted is a separate matter, bearing on the discretion of the court.” 61. In Shri Pradeep Shankar Walveka (supra), the Bombay High Court held as under: “11. Sub-section (2) of Section 14 deals with the contract to refer disputes of arbitration, Sub-section (3) is in two parts

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

34. The subject-matter of this definition has been dealt with under section 11, post. 35. Charitable purpose, defined (operative from 1-4- 2009).-As per section 2(15), newly substituted (w.e.f. 1-4- 2009) by the Finance Act, 2008, the expression “charitable purpose” has been defined by way of an inclusive definition so as to include; -relief

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

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/S K.BHASKARA RAO AND OTHERS TUNI

Appeal is allowed

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

10 “[4] The points raised by Mr. Naunit Lal are concluded by the decision of this Court in All India Film Corporation Ltd. v. Raja Gyannath, 1969-3 SCC 79 = 1970-2 SCR 581 = (AIR 1969 NSC 185) which decision was unfortunately not brought to our notice during the course of the hearing. In this case the facts were similar

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 - 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

THE COMM. OF INCOME TAX RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/S B.KRISHNA MURTHY AND OTHERS

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

property. A total of 143 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. A-1’s statement under Section 313 Cr PC 24. As far as the statement of A-1 under Section 313 Cr PC is concerned, it is relevant to note that A-1, apart from denying many of the circumstances put to him by the prosecution, gave

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-I, vs. Sri Ranbir Singh Bagga

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

property or house tax in respect of buildings or lands other than agricultural lands, under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) District Municipalities Act, 1920 the Cantonment Act, 1924, or any law governing municipal or local bodies in any other part of India or under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) District Boards Act, 1920, in a panchayat which was a union

M/s. Kausalya Shelters Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

10% of the rent realized based on the sub-lease deed. In the event, there had not been a lock-in period, the petitioner would have been at liberty to exit the rented property after the rent-free period, thereby ensuring that the L&DO would have received no rent whatsoever; d) that the lock-in period was also included

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI METTAM PENCHALA NAIDU

Bench: This Court That The 1St Assessment Order Of The Ito Was Passed On 28.03.1988, Which Was Challenged Before The Leaned Cit (A) & The Same Was Dismissed On 28.11.1988. Against The Said Order, The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Itat, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, Which Was Dismissed On 19.01.1990. Thereafter, By Order Dated 13.12.1990 Passed In A Misc. Application, The Order Dated 19.01.1990 Was Recalled & The Matter Was Heard Afresh. Again On 10.05.1991, Learned Tribunal Decided The Matter & Allowed The Exemption To The Assessee. The Revenue Filed Writ Petition Before This Court Challenging The Rectification Order Dated 13.12.1990. This Court On 02.12.1991 Allowed The Writ Petition & Quashed The Recalling Order Dated 13.12.1990 As Well As Its Substantive Order Dated

house property and does not have any brought forward loss under the head; or (iii) “Income from other sources”, except winnings from lottery or income from race horses, [and does not have any loss under the head] be in Form [SAHAJ] (ITR-1) and be verified in the manner indicated therein:] [Provided that the provisions of this clause shall