Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur. vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Kangiri.

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

12 and 12A/12AA of the IT Act. The plea that deletion of Section 10(29) and amendment of Section 10(20) with effect from 01.04.2003 disentitles the market committees from being treated as ‘charitable institutions’ under Section 2(15) of the IT Act, was rejected. The relevant observations are as under (para 30). The first contention raised by the counsel

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 269UA(f) of the Act defining the word “transfer”; 10 held that the income derived by the assessee is “Income from House Property.” 12

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

12 13. The case of Smt.Mini also is that, she is the absolute owner of the whole properties scheduled, and Sri.Joy was only a name lender in the documents. He had no business or income and the source of money for purchasing those properties was the income derived from her telephone booth, beauty parlour and share business. She purchased those

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s.Value Labs

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

12 of the D.V. Act, the maintenance fixed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. shall be taken into account.” (emphasis supplied) Para-59:- In Sudeep Chaudhary v Radha Chaudhary25 the Supreme Court directed adjustment in a case where the wife had filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., and under HMA. In the Section 125 proceedings, she had obtained

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

Bench: The Learned

12. The reassessment proceedings were initiated pursuant to a notice dated 30.03.2017 issued under Section 148 of the Act. The AO had reopened the assessment on the basis that the records of South Delhi Municipal Corporation [SDMC] indicated that the Assessee owned more than one residential property on the date of the transfer of the shares of FIITJEE

The Commissioner of Income Tax-V vs. M/s.Sri Somnath Wood Industries

In the result, revision application succeeds

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

house property. She, therefore, inducted the tenant (a partnership firm) in the suit premises, at a monthly rent. On lease period having come to an end, Minakshi surrendered possession, factually and constructively as well, of the entire leased property to the landlord. 4. A son of the landlord is a practicing advocate. He practices on civil and criminal side

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Sri N.Sai Baba Naidu

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

house property” as mandated by Section 22 of the Act. The relevant portions of the lease documents were read out to us to drive home the point. We do not think that anything turns on the fact as to at whose instance the machinery, plant or furniture were installed in the leased premises. The real test which has been applied

ANDHRA BANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 13 confers overriding effect on the Special Court Act. It says that provisions of the Special Court Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act or in any decree or order

ANDHRA BANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, HYDERABAD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, HYDERABAD

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 13 confers overriding effect on the Special Court Act. It says that provisions of the Special Court Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act or in any decree or order

ANDHRA BANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD,. HYDERABAD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, HYDERABAD

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 13 confers overriding effect on the Special Court Act. It says that provisions of the Special Court Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act or in any decree or order

The Commissioner of Inccome Tax-III vs. Speectra Shares AND Scrips Pvt Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

House Estate Ltd. illustrate the contrary proposition. There, the property, though dealt with by a company intending to do business, was dealt with as landowner. The intention in those cases was not to derive profit by business done with those properties but to derive .income by renting them out Where a Company acquires properties which it sells or leases

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

12 “Mulla Hindu Law” 21st Edition Pg.348 the concept of separate property has been elaborated. The same reads as follows:- “228. Separate property. Property acquired property ways is the separate property of the acquirer, it is called 'self-acquired' property, and is subject to the incidents mentioned in § 222 above: (1) Obstructed heritage.-Property inherited as obstructed heritage (saprati-bandha

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

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

SMT. SHANTHA VIDYASAGAR ANNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2) HYDERABAD

In the result, the orders dated 09

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

12. In section 2$zl(v) of the Act, reference has been made to Section 53A of the Transfer of property Act, lg,l2, which incorporates the doctrine of equity of part performance (,f contract. Section 53A introduces in limited form the doctrine o equity of part performalce in India where requirements mentioned in the provrslons are satisfied (see Ramachandra5Sra

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.

Section 10 of the Act, the immovable property has to be sufficiently identifiable. Relying upon Clause 3, 11 and 12 of the Collaboration Agreement, he submits that the parties were yet to agree on the plans for construction and only the ratio CS(OS) No.486/2011 Page 18 as per which such constructed portion is to be divided amongst the parties

The Commissioner of Income TAx-IV, vs. M/s. Mahaveer Enterprises (India) Limited

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Housing Society admeasuring 829.25 sq.mtrs. was of the individual ownership of the petitioner Pannaben Niranjan Mehta and was her self-acquired property. Thus the petitioner was the holder of the land in question within the meaning of the said term as envisaged under the provisions of the Act. In the circumstances, as prescribed under Rule 5 of the Rules read

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