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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

38 V. 'A' schedule property (item No.8 in O.P No.559 of 2006) in O.P No.775 of 2006 58. 'A' schedule property is 14 cents of land in Kadupassery village. That property stands in the name of Smt.Mini as per Ext.B20 sale deed. According to Sri.Joy, it is his residential property and it is situated just opposite to his tharavad house

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

The appeal is disposed of

property held for charitable purposes. The Tribunal, therefore, set aside the order passed under Section 263 of the Act and allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee. Being aggrieved, the revenue has filed this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the Tribunal itself in paragraph 21 of the order had recorded the finding that invocation of Section

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

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

property of the said company whensoever derived, shall be applied solely for the promotion of the objects as at forth in its Memorandum of Association and that no portion thereof shall be paid or transferred directly or indirectly by way of dividend, bonus or otherwise by way of profit to persons who at any time are or have been members

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-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 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

38. Learned Senior counsel Mr.K.N.Phanindra for appellant would submit that the sale agreements or sale deed do not have full and substantial value. He would also submit that the execution of the registered sale deed of the schedule property only can complete the transfer of ownership as that is the only procedure which is the final one. He would further

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

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

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

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 10Th April, 2024. Appearance: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjay Bhowmick, Advocate Ms. Swapna Das, Advocate … For The Appellant. Ms. Smita Das De, Advocate … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Sanjay Bhowmick, Learned Counsel For The Appellant/Assessee & Ms. Smita Das De, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Respondent. 2. The Assessment Years Involved In The Present Appeal Are Assessment Year 1999-2000 & Assessment Year 2000-01. By Order Dated 16.08.2012, This Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :-

house property” and deduction in respect of such income has been wrongly claimed under Section 24. Accordingly, he requested the said income to be treated as income under the head “income from business or profession”. He also claimed interest of Rs.60,50,250/- as deductible expenditure being interest paid on loans to financial institutions during the previous year

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III HYDERABAD vs. M/s. Vasant Organics Private Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10. Next contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance 11 fa963.05 Shantaram Vs Janabai & Ors Company is that the medical evidence placed on record falls short to prove that due to accidental injuries, the Claimant has lost 100% earning capacity to work as distributor for Tata Tea Company. 11. In both claim petitions, the learned counsel for the Insurance

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

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

10 8 (2010) 13 SC 710 9 (201) 7 SC 714 10 (2017) 9 SC 426 LA.AP. 59/207 & conected Page 92 of 171 to submit that benefit of higher compensation should be granted to even those landowners who could not aproach the court . Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Cordinate bench of this Court in Bedi Ram Vs. Union