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

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s. Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Ltd.,

house in India for himself and his family so as to own, possess and enjoy the same in his old age and visit his mother country India as and when he desires. The RC.REV. 392/2013 & 394/2013 Page 12 of 46 petitioner led the evidence that he has been paying exorbitant prices/charges for the hotel for his stay

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

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

Bench: Adverting To The Facts Of The Case It Is Beneficial To Mention Here That No Affidavit Had Been Filed On Behalf Of The State (Present Appellant In Both The Appeals) In Either Of The Two Writ Petitions. Learned Counsel Appearing For The State Before The Hon’Ble Single Judge Had Agreed For Disposal Of The Two Writ Petitions Without Affidavits Being Filed On The Ground That Arguments Have To Be Advanced On Question Of Law Only. 3. A Compendium Of Facts Relevant For Disposal Of These Appeals Is As Follows:

108]. Mr. Sengupta further relying on New Horizons Ltd. Vs. Union of India [1995 (1) SCC 478] urged before Hon’ble Single Judge to lift the corporate veil in the case to examine the actual intention of the share holders of the transferee company in transferring the bulk of equity shares in favour of the present respondent company

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. M/S GOLDEN STAR FACILITIES AND SERVICES PVT LTD., HYD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Section 13 which provides for Rule making power of the Central Government in respect of minerals. Section 13 subsection (1) WP(C). 11249/2010 & other contd cases. -:88:- and Section 13 Sub-section (2) in so far as relevant in the present case are as follows: “13. Power of Central Government to make Rules in respect of minerals.-- (1) The Central

THEE COMMSSR.OF INCOME TAX.HYD. vs. CHALLA SHANKER REDDY.HYD.

Bench: L.NARASIMHA REDDY,T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

108. Therefrtre. Ive do not have any doubt tl-rat the letter dated 10.09.1996 (li-x.,\174) was indeed written by ,1.V. Itr.o '(D.W.1 in O.S.No.115 of !l{)06) and unequivocally stated that the Development Agreements 'wr:rr: only nominal documents for accounting purposes and the plaintiffs r n .he Suit (N. Subash and others

COMMR.OF I.T. RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/S.NARAYANA CHOWDARYAND ORS KAKINADA

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

108. Therefrtre. Ive do not have any doubt tl-rat the letter dated 10.09.1996 (li-x.,\174) was indeed written by ,1.V. Itr.o '(D.W.1 in O.S.No.115 of !l{)06) and unequivocally stated that the Development Agreements 'wr:rr: only nominal documents for accounting purposes and the plaintiffs r n .he Suit (N. Subash and others

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - (TDS), vs. M/s. Suman Chit Funds (P) Ltd.,

108. Therefrtre. Ive do not have any doubt tl-rat the letter dated 10.09.1996 (li-x.,\174) was indeed written by ,1.V. Itr.o '(D.W.1 in O.S.No.115 of !l{)06) and unequivocally stated that the Development Agreements 'wr:rr: only nominal documents for accounting purposes and the plaintiffs r n .he Suit (N. Subash and others

Commissioner of Income Tax [TDS] vs. Sri VAraha Laxmi Nrusimha Swamy DEvastanam

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

HOUSE, KOVILVATTOM ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 035. BY ADVS. SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.ISAC T.PAUL SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) 3RD FLOOR, AYAKAR BHAVAN, KAWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 003. 2 STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE CENTRALISED PENSION PROCESSING CENTRE, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 014. BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Swapna Lahari Pvt Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

HOUSE, KOVILVATTOM ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 035. BY ADVS. SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.ISAC T.PAUL SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) 3RD FLOOR, AYAKAR BHAVAN, KAWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 003. 2 STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE CENTRALISED PENSION PROCESSING CENTRE, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 014. BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Smt G Sailaja

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

HOUSE, KOVILVATTOM ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 035. BY ADVS. SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.ISAC T.PAUL SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) 3RD FLOOR, AYAKAR BHAVAN, KAWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 003. 2 STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE CENTRALISED PENSION PROCESSING CENTRE, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 014. BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION

Commissioner of Income TAx-II, Hyderabad vs. M/s. Sri Balaji Bio MAss Power Pvt. Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

HOUSE, KOVILVATTOM ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 035. BY ADVS. SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.ISAC T.PAUL SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) 3RD FLOOR, AYAKAR BHAVAN, KAWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 003. 2 STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE CENTRALISED PENSION PROCESSING CENTRE, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 014. BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION

The Commissioner of Income Tax -1 vs. Harmahendar Singh Bagga

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

HOUSE, KOVILVATTOM ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 035. BY ADVS. SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.ISAC T.PAUL SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) 3RD FLOOR, AYAKAR BHAVAN, KAWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 003. 2 STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE CENTRALISED PENSION PROCESSING CENTRE, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 014. BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. The Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

HOUSE, KOVILVATTOM ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 035. BY ADVS. SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.ISAC T.PAUL SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) 3RD FLOOR, AYAKAR BHAVAN, KAWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 003. 2 STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE CENTRALISED PENSION PROCESSING CENTRE, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 014. BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. Bheema Wines

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. The case against R.C.Sabharwal is that he was found in possession of the total assets worth Rs.3,10,58,324/- for the check period beginning from 20.08.1968 till 23.08.1995. The assets which were disproportionate to his known sources of the income were Rs.2,05,63,641/-. His wife's salary during

M/s. Canara Securities Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO,T.AMARNATH GOUD

properties as alleged. It is submitted that similar submissions were made by HVL before the Joint APLs which is evidenced by the Minutes of the meeting dated 21st July, 2017, similar stand was taken in his affidavit-in-opposition to the administrator's proceedings filed by the respondents in 2008 which culminated in judgment of the Division Bench dated 23rd

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

Appeal is allowed

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

house, and the lessee had further sublet the same, to sub-lessees. On redemption the purchaser of the interest of the mortgagor filed a suit for possession of the property from the head lessee and the sub-lessees. The sub- lessees claimed the benefit of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (3 of 1949). In this High Court three

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Shri Raaj Kumar Jain

Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused has denied his implication in the case/offence and has claimed that he was tortured and that his nails were extracted, his genitals were burnt and petrol was put in his anus. He offered to get himself medically examined to prove his allegations. The accused SK also claimed that he was extended other tortures and the C.B.I