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, 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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX vs. M/S V.SATAYANARAYANA

The appeal is allowed

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

house at 7 o'clock in the evening. The girl was unconscious during the day. PW 2 told her husband as to what had happened to their daughter. The police station was at a distance of 15 km. According to the testimony of PW 1 no mode of conveyance was available. The police was reported to the next day morning

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

2 acres 25.61 guntas of land. A portion of the property was idle. This prompted the assessee to dispose off the property in question in somewhat distress sale. Since there was a group concern M/s. MD Properties Ltd., which could profitably put the property to use, it was decided to sell the property to the said concern. The - - 13 sale

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

Appeal is dismissed,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

13 (2) of the Act, 1988. The respondent/accused officer was working as Income Tax Officer, Ward-ll, Vizianagaram at the relevant point of time of the incident. There is no dispute that he was a public servant within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of the PC Act, 1988. 17. Ex.PIO is the order issued by P.W4, Commissioner of Income

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 -II vs. The Agrasen Coop. Urban Bank Ltd.,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

property and Rs.83,60,46,867/- as income from the business of banking. The assessee claimed deduction of business income under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act. The assessing officer, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax took up the return for scrutiny and found that the assessee had Rs.61,87,16,546/- as statutory reserve

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. The Andhra Bank Employees Co.Operative Bank Limited

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

property and Rs.83,60,46,867/- as income from the business of banking. The assessee claimed deduction of business income under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act. The assessing officer, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax took up the return for scrutiny and found that the assessee had Rs.61,87,16,546/- as statutory reserve

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/s. The A.P.Vardhaman(Mahila)Cooperative Urban

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

property and Rs.83,60,46,867/- as income from the business of banking. The assessee claimed deduction of business income under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act. The assessing officer, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax took up the return for scrutiny and found that the assessee had Rs.61,87,16,546/- as statutory reserve

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S The A.P.Mahesh Coop. Urban Bank Ltd,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

property and Rs.83,60,46,867/- as income from the business of banking. The assessee claimed deduction of business income under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act. The assessing officer, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax took up the return for scrutiny and found that the assessee had Rs.61,87,16,546/- as statutory reserve

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 IV vs. Prefab Gratings Limited,

Bench: Honourable Mr. Justice Manish Choudhury Judgment & Order (Cav) Date : 24-05-2019

HOUSING COMPLEX R.G. BARUAH ROAD CHANDMARI GUWAHATI P.S. CHANDMARI GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM. 4:MD. MATIUR RAHMAN S/O ALHAZ AHMADUR RAHMAN R/O MOROMI PATH HATIGAON Page No.# 2/26 GUWAHATI-38 DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM. 5:MD. ABDUR RAHMAN S/O MD. ABDUL ALI R/O DEHAR KUNIHA ADHIYAPARA HAJO P.S. HAJO DIST.KAMRUP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.P HUJURI Advocate for the Respondent

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 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

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

Commissioner of Income Tax - II vs. M/s. Inforaise Technologies Pvt. Ltd.,

property or money to be other than that of a religious endowment or specific endowment, as the case may be.” The argument of the learned counsel so far as the power of the State or its authorities with respect to monitoring certain affairs of the temple cannot be denied, however, the question which begs consideration is whether, in the first

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

property. If the aforesaid amounts are deducted from the alleged disproportionate assets there will clearly be no case for the prosecution. Furthermore, no link or substantial evidence is shown, of the petitioners having come into possession of any monies by indulging in any criminal misconduct. 2. What is to be seen at this stage is whether a case is made