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

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

1) of the IT Act Before the amendments, introduced by the Finance Act, 2002, with effect from 01.04.2003, Sections 10(20) and (29) read as under. 10(20) the income of a local authority which is chargeable under the head ‘Income from house property”, “Capital gains”, or “income from other sources” or from a trade or business carried

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

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

1) of the IT Act Before the amendments, introduced by the Finance Act, 2002, with effect from 01.04.2003, Sections 10(20) and (29) read as under. 10(20) the income of a local authority which is chargeable under the head ‘Income from house property”, “Capital gains”, or “income from other sources” or from a trade or business carried

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

Appeal is dismissed,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

house; (b) P.W1, having not willing to give bribe, lodged Ex.P1- report on 15.03.2001 to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Visakhapatnam, who in turn endorsed the report to P.W6-lnspector of Police, Vigilance Enforcement, Srikakulam and ordered for registering the crime and for investigation. Ex.PII is the original FIR vide RC No.8 (A)/2001 registered by P.W6. P.W6 prepared mediators report

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

13(1)(e) of the Bombay Rent Act. On the evidence produced in the matter, it was held by the Appellate Court that there was no camouflage partnership and there was no subletting which decision of the Appellate Court was upheld by this Court on the factual aspect. 8.10 In the case of Lilaram Jamiatrai and others (supra), wherein

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

E' schedule properties, and also to get back 'Q' schedule movables or its equivalent value. 4. The Family Court tried those three cases together treating O.P No.366 of 2006, the O.P for divorce filed by the wife, as the leading case. PWs 1 to 7 were examined and Exts.A1 to A72 were marked from the side of the wife

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

13 sale was made at a price that was greater than the guidelines value of the property. Thus, the price at which the sale was effected is at a reasonable price. The property was never sold outside to a third party, but it was a sale to itself, to a sister concern which never parted with the property and therefore

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Nara Constructions,

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

e) "housing finance company" means a public company formed or registered in India with the main object of carrying on the business of providing long-term finance for construction or purchase of houses in India for residential purposes; (f) "public company" shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1

COMM.OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE vs. NAVABHARAT ENTERPRISES HYD

In the result, Income Tax Appeal No

Bench: This Court & Hence Both Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Decided By This Common Judgment. 2. Sri Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Rahul Agarwal, Advocate Have Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Sri Manish Goel, Advocate Has Put In Appearance On Behalf Of Revenue. 3. Revenue'S Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law:- (1)Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Tribunal Was Right In Holding That Authorization For Search

13. Reminder notice dated 29.7.1997 under Section 142(1) was served upon Assessee requiring it to file return by 8.8.1997. In response thereto, Assessee filed statement that most record of Assessee are lying with Central Excise Department, hence it is not in a position to file return of Income Tax. Thereafter, Income Tax Authorities contacted Excise Authorities and made efforts

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and 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

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 IV vs. M/s. Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Ltd.,

Section 14(1)(e) of RC.REV. 392/2013 & 394/2013 Page 8 of 46 the DRC Act. The averments in the written statement were denied and it was stated that if the petitioner/landlord has a proper residence at New Delhi his family which comprises of his wife and three married children and grand- children would also be happy to visit their motherland

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

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

13(1)(e) of the PC Act. Analyzing the provision of clause-(b) of section 3 of the PC Act, it has been held that the provision encompasses the offences committed in conspiracy with others or by abetment of "any of the offences" punishable under the P.C. Act and the abettor or the conspirator can be delinked from the delinquent

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Property Mgmt Office Basement, Grand Central Mall, Nana Mauva Main [2025:RJ-JP:25721] (34 of 55) [COAP-21/2016] 2. 3. 4. Road, Rajnagar Cross Road, Rajkot, Gujrat. Ved Prakash Arya s/o Satyapal Arya, Flat No. 701, Gladioli Chs, Off yari Roadversova, andheri, West Mumbai 400058 Jateen madan lal Gupta s/o roop Narayan gupta, 1, Rivera-30 Bunglows

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Property Mgmt Office Basement, Grand Central Mall, Nana Mauva Main [2025:RJ-JP:25721] (34 of 55) [COAP-21/2016] 2. 3. 4. Road, Rajnagar Cross Road, Rajkot, Gujrat. Ved Prakash Arya s/o Satyapal Arya, Flat No. 701, Gladioli Chs, Off yari Roadversova, andheri, West Mumbai 400058 Jateen madan lal Gupta s/o roop Narayan gupta, 1, Rivera-30 Bunglows

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

Bench: SUREPALLI NANDA,UJJAL BHUYAN

Property Mgmt Office Basement, Grand Central Mall, Nana Mauva Main [2025:RJ-JP:25721] (34 of 55) [COAP-21/2016] 2. 3. 4. Road, Rajnagar Cross Road, Rajkot, Gujrat. Ved Prakash Arya s/o Satyapal Arya, Flat No. 701, Gladioli Chs, Off yari Roadversova, andheri, West Mumbai 400058 Jateen madan lal Gupta s/o roop Narayan gupta, 1, Rivera-30 Bunglows

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

Bench: SUREPALLI NANDA,UJJAL BHUYAN

Property Mgmt Office Basement, Grand Central Mall, Nana Mauva Main [2025:RJ-JP:25721] (34 of 55) [COAP-21/2016] 2. 3. 4. Road, Rajnagar Cross Road, Rajkot, Gujrat. Ved Prakash Arya s/o Satyapal Arya, Flat No. 701, Gladioli Chs, Off yari Roadversova, andheri, West Mumbai 400058 Jateen madan lal Gupta s/o roop Narayan gupta, 1, Rivera-30 Bunglows

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

Bench: SUREPALLI NANDA,UJJAL BHUYAN

Property Mgmt Office Basement, Grand Central Mall, Nana Mauva Main [2025:RJ-JP:25721] (34 of 55) [COAP-21/2016] 2. 3. 4. Road, Rajnagar Cross Road, Rajkot, Gujrat. Ved Prakash Arya s/o Satyapal Arya, Flat No. 701, Gladioli Chs, Off yari Roadversova, andheri, West Mumbai 400058 Jateen madan lal Gupta s/o roop Narayan gupta, 1, Rivera-30 Bunglows