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 Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Vaishnavi Educational Society

In the result, this Cross Objection is allowed and the suit is

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

house in Kerala. The second plaintiff who returned to her residence at Thiruvananthapuram many times demanded the first defendant to return the documents. But he was evading the return of the same by saying lame excuses. In that circumstances the plaintiffs respectively cancelled their power-of-attorney by executing revocation deeds on 22.07.2008 and 29.07.2008 and the matter of revocation

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

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

properties taken to AIIMS for examination. 111 25.04.07 The protest petition of Jatin Sarkar, father of 'A' and complainant in ST 440/2007, challenging the exoneration of Pandher by the CBI and seeking further investigation against Pandher and the role of Dy. S. P., Dinesh Yadav, is transferred to the court of the Ld. Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad

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

Bench: L.NARASIMHA REDDY,T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

111. A bare perusal of the Suit filed by the respondents (O'S'No 11 t 2OO6) shows that the plaintiffs have calculated and paid Court fees under sectio t 24(al of The Andhra Pradesh 'Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (1956 Act) for the relief of t"f" ot Sale Deeds and I the consequential relief

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

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

111. A bare perusal of the Suit filed by the respondents (O'S'No 11 t 2OO6) shows that the plaintiffs have calculated and paid Court fees under sectio t 24(al of The Andhra Pradesh 'Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (1956 Act) for the relief of t"f" ot Sale Deeds and I the consequential relief

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

111. A bare perusal of the Suit filed by the respondents (O'S'No 11 t 2OO6) shows that the plaintiffs have calculated and paid Court fees under sectio t 24(al of The Andhra Pradesh 'Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (1956 Act) for the relief of t"f" ot Sale Deeds and I the consequential relief

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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

111. It is settled law that though taxing laws are not outside article 14, however, having regard to the wide variety of diverse economic criteria that go into the formulation of a fiscal policy, Legislature enjoys a wide latitude in the matter of selection of persons, subject-matter, events, etc., for taxation. The tests of the vice of discrimination

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. K. V. Srinivasa Rao

Section 145 of the Evidence Act. If a contradiction is put to the witness and it is denied by him, then his attention has to be drawn to the statement made by such witness before the Police or any other previous statement and he must be given a reasonable opportunity to explain as to why such contradiction appears

The Commissioner of Income-Tax - VI, vs. Shri Mekala Bal Reddy

properties to the place of incident. Further, P.W-2 stated that he reached at the place of the incident at about 12.30 a.m. Devendra and other accused were not sitting in their 'Gher' rather they were sitting on the road on Cots having Hukka. They were sitting in front of their 'Gher' on the North side, on the road

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

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

house generator". 86. He further submitted that the Tribunal by relying upon the said Clause adjusted the expenses incurred by the respondent, the rent till the date of actual handing over of the possession and the security deposit lying with the respondent. Even after adjustment, an amount of ₹5,69,609/- was still due and payable, which was added

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 Pr. Commissioner of Income tax (Central), vs. Sri Vaishnavi Educational Society,

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.51929/2014 C/W W.P.Nos.42063/2012, 30494/2013, 42671/2013, 638/2014, 797/2014, 1089/2014, 3211/2014, 3389/2014, 6180/2014, 10356/2014, 12014/2014, 12015/2014, 13043/2014, 13045/2014, 13206/2014, 13207/2014, 13398/2014, 13774/2014, 14149/2014, 14161/2014, 14494/2014, 14502/2014, 14521/2014, 14689/2014, 16646/2014, 17051/2014, 17594/2014, 19729/2014, 21158/2014, 23897/2014, 28861/2014, 30731/2014, 31723/2014, 33774/2014, 33777/2014, 34084/2014, 34259/2014, 34272/2014, 34391/2014, 35204/2014, 35243/2014, 35247/2014, 35305/2014, 35609/2014, 36164/2014, 36166/2014, 36489/2014, 36525/2014, 36971/2014, 37446/2014, 38055/2014, 38463/2014, 38471/2014, 38472/2014, 38661/2014, 38753/2014, 39383/2014, 39633/2014, 39832/2014, 40204/2014, 40379/2014, 41394/2014, 41422/2014, 41427/2014, 41428/2014, 41858/2014, 43815/2014, 43963/2014, 44306/2014, 44527/2014, 44742/2014, 44835/2014, 45486/2014, 46766/2014, 47103/2014, 47105/2014, 47106/2014, 47107/2014, 47608/2014, 47731/2014, 47821/2014, 47860/2014, 47913/2014, 48577/2014, 48880/2014, 49567/2014, 50260/2014, 50533/2014, 51294/2014, 51930/2014, 51931/2014, 51932/2014, 52760/2014, 53854/2014, 54059/2014, 54083/2014, 54236/2014

SECTION 19(1) OF THE B.D.A. ACT ISSUED IN THE KARNATAKA GAZETTE DATED 18.06.2014 (ANNEX-A) IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY IS CONCERNED BEING PROPERTY NO.206, CARVED OUT IN SY.NO.48/1 OF DASARAHALLI VILLAGE AND ETC. IN W.P. NO. 43963/2014: BETWEEN: 1. SRI KRISHNAPPA 93 S/O.LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 2. SRI S. R. ANJINAPPA

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), HYDERABAD vs. SMT.M.VIJAYA, HYDERABAD

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

111-112, 116-117, 118-119B, Nishant Bagh Colony, Village Bhattian Near Jallandhar bye pass, Ludhiyana 140000, Punjab through its Manager/Proprietor 2. Dilip Agarwal S/o Late Shri Kishan Swaroop Agarwal, R/o Agarwal Colony Civil Lines, Ajmer 305006 3. Sanjay Jain S/o Shri Suresh Chand Jain, R/o 357, Saket Colony, Makarwali Road, Ajmer 305001 4. Shriram Fatehpuria S/o Rameshwar

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), HYDERABAD vs. SRI V.CHENNA KESAVA RAO

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

111-112, 116-117, 118-119B, Nishant Bagh Colony, Village Bhattian Near Jallandhar bye pass, Ludhiyana 140000, Punjab through its Manager/Proprietor 2. Dilip Agarwal S/o Late Shri Kishan Swaroop Agarwal, R/o Agarwal Colony Civil Lines, Ajmer 305006 3. Sanjay Jain S/o Shri Suresh Chand Jain, R/o 357, Saket Colony, Makarwali Road, Ajmer 305001 4. Shriram Fatehpuria S/o Rameshwar

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I vs. M/S. CONEXANT SYSTEMS INDIA PVT.LTD., HYD

Bench: SUREPALLI NANDA,UJJAL BHUYAN

111-112, 116-117, 118-119B, Nishant Bagh Colony, Village Bhattian Near Jallandhar bye pass, Ludhiyana 140000, Punjab through its Manager/Proprietor 2. Dilip Agarwal S/o Late Shri Kishan Swaroop Agarwal, R/o Agarwal Colony Civil Lines, Ajmer 305006 3. Sanjay Jain S/o Shri Suresh Chand Jain, R/o 357, Saket Colony, Makarwali Road, Ajmer 305001 4. Shriram Fatehpuria S/o Rameshwar

THE PRL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYD vs. M/S. AMR INDIA LTD., HYD

Bench: SUREPALLI NANDA,UJJAL BHUYAN

111-112, 116-117, 118-119B, Nishant Bagh Colony, Village Bhattian Near Jallandhar bye pass, Ludhiyana 140000, Punjab through its Manager/Proprietor 2. Dilip Agarwal S/o Late Shri Kishan Swaroop Agarwal, R/o Agarwal Colony Civil Lines, Ajmer 305006 3. Sanjay Jain S/o Shri Suresh Chand Jain, R/o 357, Saket Colony, Makarwali Road, Ajmer 305001 4. Shriram Fatehpuria S/o Rameshwar