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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

ia\\ ( l ) Whcthcr orl the facts and in t]rc circunrsrances of tltc' c rrsc, Tribunal was jusrified in holdrng that thc appcll:Lrrt rvas the ou'ner of the l;onrls in qrrestion despite thc notification dated 02.O7 1992 issued by the Custodiarr in terms of Section 3 of thc Special Courl (Trial of Offences Relating to Transaciions

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

ia\\ ( l ) Whcthcr orl the facts and in t]rc circunrsrances of tltc' c rrsc, Tribunal was jusrified in holdrng that thc appcll:Lrrt rvas the ou'ner of the l;onrls in qrrestion despite thc notification dated 02.O7 1992 issued by the Custodiarr in terms of Section 3 of thc Special Courl (Trial of Offences Relating to Transaciions

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

ia\\ ( l ) Whcthcr orl the facts and in t]rc circunrsrances of tltc' c rrsc, Tribunal was jusrified in holdrng that thc appcll:Lrrt rvas the ou'ner of the l;onrls in qrrestion despite thc notification dated 02.O7 1992 issued by the Custodiarr in terms of Section 3 of thc Special Courl (Trial of Offences Relating to Transaciions

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

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. M/S GOLDEN STAR FACILITIES AND SERVICES PVT LTD., HYD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

IA NO.1/2019. BY ADVS. SHRI K.P.JAYACHANDRAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL SRI. S. RENJITH, SPL. GOVT. PLEADER TO AAG. SRI. M.H.HANIL KUMAR, SPECIAL GOVT. PLEADER TO AAG THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.05.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C). NO.11249/2010 AND OTHER CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C). 11249/2010 & other contd cases

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

1. STATE OF KARNTAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001 2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE-560020 3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE-560020 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.V. SHASHIKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI. M.N. RAMANJANEYA GOWDA, ADVOCATE

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

13. Thus, the plaintiff- company requested the 1st defendant to complete the formalities of the registration. In the meanwhile, it is also noticed that O.S.No.34/1994 was filed for permanent injunction restraining the plaintiff’s company from interfering with the schedule property and the sale deed is not binding on her and the same was dismissed for non- prosecution

Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

house property and whereas, the subject matter of the suit is ground floor Mulgi with corresponding first floor rooms. Thus, declaring the sale deeds in favour of the Appellants as void, is untenable and against the spirit of the above provision. 4.2. Section 52 does not operate to extinguish the title of the Appellants herein. It was specilically contended

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agrilcultural Market Committee

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

house property and whereas, the subject matter of the suit is ground floor Mulgi with corresponding first floor rooms. Thus, declaring the sale deeds in favour of the Appellants as void, is untenable and against the spirit of the above provision. 4.2. Section 52 does not operate to extinguish the title of the Appellants herein. It was specilically contended

-

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. By the impugned judgment and decree, Family Court dissolved the marriage of appellant and respondent by granting decree of divorce and directed the respondent to pay sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- towards permanent alimony to the appellant. Custody of minor daughters was continued

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

Bench: L.NARASIMHA REDDY,T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

IA. No. 1 of 2023 in CCCA. No.B 1 ot 2002) ...CROSS OBJECTORS/PLAINTFFS AND M/s .lmage Developers_ Pvt.Ltd.,, Rep by its lVanaging Dreictor, lVlr.C.Venateswara Rao, S/o. Venkatramaiah, iged 5g yrs, "oc6 Business, Fl/o.Plot No.14-A, Road No.2, Jubitee Hills, Hyderibad- 500 033. C Venkateswara Rao, S/o_ Sri Venkatramaiah, aged 5g yrs, Occ: Business Rl/o. Plot No. 14-A, Road

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

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

IA. No. 1 of 2023 in CCCA. No.B 1 ot 2002) ...CROSS OBJECTORS/PLAINTFFS AND M/s .lmage Developers_ Pvt.Ltd.,, Rep by its lVanaging Dreictor, lVlr.C.Venateswara Rao, S/o. Venkatramaiah, iged 5g yrs, "oc6 Business, Fl/o.Plot No.14-A, Road No.2, Jubitee Hills, Hyderibad- 500 033. C Venkateswara Rao, S/o_ Sri Venkatramaiah, aged 5g yrs, Occ: Business Rl/o. Plot No. 14-A, Road

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

IA. No. 1 of 2023 in CCCA. No.B 1 ot 2002) ...CROSS OBJECTORS/PLAINTFFS AND M/s .lmage Developers_ Pvt.Ltd.,, Rep by its lVanaging Dreictor, lVlr.C.Venateswara Rao, S/o. Venkatramaiah, iged 5g yrs, "oc6 Business, Fl/o.Plot No.14-A, Road No.2, Jubitee Hills, Hyderibad- 500 033. C Venkateswara Rao, S/o_ Sri Venkatramaiah, aged 5g yrs, Occ: Business Rl/o. Plot No. 14-A, Road

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

Bench: Adverting To The Facts Of The Case It Is Beneficial To Mention Here That No Affidavit Had Been Filed On Behalf Of The State (Present Appellant In Both The Appeals) In Either Of The Two Writ Petitions. Learned Counsel Appearing For The State Before The Hon’Ble Single Judge Had Agreed For Disposal Of The Two Writ Petitions Without Affidavits Being Filed On The Ground That Arguments Have To Be Advanced On Question Of Law Only. 3. A Compendium Of Facts Relevant For Disposal Of These Appeals Is As Follows:

IA No: CAN 1 of 2022 The State of West Bengal & Ors. ......Appellants. vs. Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd. & Anr. .........Respondents. For the State/Appellants : Mr. Susovan Sengupta, Adv. Mr. Naba Kumar Das, Adv. Mr. Subir Pal, Adv. Mr. Pathik Bandhu Banerjee, Adv. For the Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Saptansu Basu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Suman Dutt, Adv. Mr. Atish Ghosh

M/s. Canara Securities Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO,T.AMARNATH GOUD

IA NO: GA/1/2020 (ARISING OUT OF TS/6/2004) ADITYA VIKRAM LODHA VERSUS ARVIND KUMAR NEWAR AND ORS. WITH OCO/10/2020 ADITYA VIKRAM LODHA VERSUS ARVIND KUMAR NEWAR AND ORS. WITH OCO/18/2020 ADITYA VIKRAM LODHA VERSUS ARVIND KUMAR NEWAR AND ORS. WITH OCO/26/2020 ADITYA VIKRAM LODHA VERSUS ARVIND KUMAR NEWAR

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

V.C. NANNAPANENI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

1) of the Act and the Tribunal accordingly referred the question of law as to “whether the sum of O.S. Rs.2,19,343 received by the assessee firm from Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co., Ltd., is a revenue receipt or a capital receipt?”. The High Court reframed the question as to “whether the sum of Rs.2,19,343 received

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

Section 27 begins with a proviso and states that when any fact is deposed to as discovered, in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved, 49 whether it amounts to a confession