The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s Pokarna Limited

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

section 9 of the Income-tax Act, that letting out such property and collecting rents was not doing business, - - 39 and that profits and gains from business were very different from income from property.” It is, therefore, seen that the activities, in the case of Commercial Properties Ltd. and East India Housing were very restricted and consisted of only

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

13. Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act provides that there shall be formed for the whole of the State a fund to be called the ‘Central Market Fund’. Every market committee is required to contribute 10 per cent of its annual income to the Central Market Fund and the contribution so paid shall be placed

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

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

13. Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act provides that there shall be formed for the whole of the State a fund to be called the ‘Central Market Fund’. Every market committee is required to contribute 10 per cent of its annual income to the Central Market Fund and the contribution so paid shall be placed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/s. Murala Venkateswara Rao AND others

Appeal is dismissed,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

properties M.Os.1 to 7. During the cross-examination of P.W1, Exs.DI and 7. D2, through P.W5, Exs.D3 and D4, through P.W6, Exs.DS and D6 and through P.W8, Exs.D7 and D8 were marked. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused officer was examined under Section 313 CrPC to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

13(2) of PC Act, and Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC. The allegation against him was that, Sri.Joy, who Mat.Appeal No.242 of 2012 & conn. cases 15 was a real estate broker, hatched a criminal conspiracy with A1, Bank Manager of Union Bank of India, Cherpu branch, A13 Sri.K.T Thomas, a Chartered Accountant,and A14 Sri.G. Jyothi

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

13,90,260/-) to be rental income under the head “income from house property” and after allowing deduction under Section

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/s Padmapriya Real Estates AND Financiers

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment passed by

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

properties of Rs. 3,31,696.46/- which was unexplained earning of the appellant. Inventory was prepared and investigation was completed and after obtaining sanction from the Law and Legislative Department, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for the offence under Section 13(1)(e) and 13 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 before the learned trial

The Director of Income Tax-(Exemptions), vs. Vasavi Academy of Education

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

section 13(i)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, „the PC Act‟) by the other accused, who is her husband. 2. On the strength of search warrant issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jeypore in Vigilance Misc. Case No.133 of 2009, the - 2 - residential house of Prasanta Kumar Panda, who was then working as Executive Engineer

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

13. The issue of bonafide requirement was dissected by the learned ARC in three limbs i.e. site plan of the demised premises, bonafide need of the entire suit property in terms of the area and bonafide requirement for residential purpose. 14. The learned ARC held that the veracity of the site plan of the demised premises Ex.PW-1/8 remained

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

Bench: The Learned

property bearing address D-6/5, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. According to the AO, the basement and second floor were required to be considered as two separate residential houses. 13. In terms of clause (i) to the proviso to Section

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

house No. 7, Masjid Moth, New Delhi and Rs.8310/- from insurance policies and accused R.C. Sabharwal and his wife earned Rs. 1,98,972/- towards interest. It is also alleged that accused earned rental income of Rs.62,890/- from BPC Pump at Garh Muktheshwar. Thus total Digitally signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:16.12.2020 13:19:29 Signature Not Verified

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

M/s Vodafone Essar South Ltd., vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income tax,

13(1)(e) of P.C.Act and under Sections 109, 465, 467, 471, 474, 420 r/w 120B of Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of prosecution is that the accused nos.2 to 12 have aided   and   abetted   the   accused   no.1   to   acquire   wealth   of Rs.2,66,28,628/­ disproportionate to his known source of income. 3. The gist of the prosecution

The Commissioner of Income Tax V vs. M/s.Orchem Industries

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

House Rates Control Act for eviction on the ground of sub-letting, Page 11 of 36 C/CRA/79/2007 JUDGMENT the landlord has preferred an appeal wherein the judgment was reversed and it was held that mere fact that tenant is a majority shareholder does not sufficient to disprove sub-letting. It was shown that tenant is actually controlling and managing business

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