The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Sri.G.Sanjay Chowdary

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

12A(1)(aa) of the Act it was considered as an institution of charitable purpose. Consequently the assessee’s income therein was exempted from tax under section 11 of the Act. The Co- ordinate Bench considered the expression ‘any other object of general public utility’ under Section 2(15) of the Act and interpreted it by saying that the said

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

12A, that the business was carried on by the beneficiaries of the trust in furtherance of the objects, that the provisions of Section 11(4) of the Act and not Section 11(4A) were applicable, that the business of the trust was not carried on with the motive of earning profit but only with a view to deriving, income

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

12A with effect from 21st December, 2005 (the same date as the date on which the license under Section 25 of the Act, 1956 came to be granted). Mr. Soparkar also pointed out that a show-cause notice was issued by the DIT (E), Ahmedabad under Section 12AA(3) of the Act. The proceedings, ultimately, came to be dropped

The Commissioner of Income Tax I vs. Mesmer Technologies Ltd

The appeals are allowed in part

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,M.S.K.JAISWAL

properties acquired through KIADB for right of way for Bangalore Metro Rail project is subject to quantum of service charges payable to KIADB. The balances are under reconciliation with KIADB. Thus, it was argued that the Assessing Officer has failed to appreciate this portion of the note “subject to quantum of service charges payable to KIADB” and has arrived

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

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 commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s Lanco Kondapalli Power (P) Ltd

12a Hemant Zaverilal Shah 12b Kavita Hemant Shah, both adults, of Mumbai, Indian Page 77 of 198 22nd March 2024 Saurer Textile Solutions Pvt Ltd v The State of Maharashtra & Ors & Connected Writ Petitions 1-2-oswp-1494-2023-J+.docx Inhabitants, having present address at A/205, Nirmal Apartment, Shankar Lane, Kandivali (West), Mumbai 400 067. 13a Jaisheel Atmadip Dhami