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

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

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

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

The Commissioner of Income TAx-IV, vs. M/s. Mahaveer Enterprises (India) Limited

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

13 of 76 C/LPA/94/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2021 RAVJIBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL SINCE DECD. THR'HEIRS V/s ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY U.L.C. entitled to get the benefit of Section 3 of the Repeal Act. However, there will be no order as to costs.” 38.2 These significant contextual facts are missing in the case in our hands where Sections 10(3

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

M/s. Maruthi Movies vs. Income Tax Officer

Bench: This Court & Making The Same A Rule Of Court, Alongwith Decree Against Respondents Awarding Rs.5,35,920/- Paid By The Petitioner To The Arbitrator As Their Share Of Fees As Per Order Dated 21.12.2010. 2. Respondent No.1 Has Filed Its Objections To The Award Under Section 30 & 33 Of The Act In Form Of I.A. No.9067/2011. Respondent No.2 Has Also Filed Its Objections To The Award.

Section 20 of the Act seeking appointment of an Arbitrator and reference of disputes, being Suit CS(OS) No.486/2011 Page 3 No.1638-A of 1986. This Court by its order dated 08.04.1991 appointed a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the claims of the petitioner. 8. The abovesaid order was challenged by the respondent no.1 and the respondent nos.2 and 3

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 3(2). Moreover, there is nothing to show that even if Smt.Mini purchased that property, it was for her own benefit and not for the benefit of her husband also. So, Ext.B16 document cannot be termed as a benami transaction by which Sri.Joy remained the beneficiary, though the document was executed in the joint name of himself

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, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/s. Murala Venkateswara Rao AND others

Appeal is dismissed,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

3 the tax; that the accused officer with dishonest and fraudulent intention, demanded a bribe of Rs.25,000/- from P.W1 for reducing the tax to be paid in the matter of assessment of his source of income for construction of house; (b) P.W1, having not willing to give bribe, lodged Ex.P1- report on 15.03.2001 to the Superintendent of Police

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

3)(i).” 17. Thus, if a property is held under trust, and such property is a business, the case would fall under Section 11(4) and not under Section 11(4A) of the Act. Section 11(4A) of the Act, would apply only to a case where the business is not held under trust. 18. In view of the above

The Commissioner of Income Tax [Central] vs. Akula Nageswara Rao

In the result, R.C.R.Nos.405/2017, 406/2017, 407/2017, 408/2017,

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

13 P.B.SURESH KUMAR & C.S.SUDHA, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- R.C.R.Nos. 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410 of 2017 and 97, 102, 107 and 183 of 2018 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2022 O R D E R C.S.Sudha, J. These R.C.Rs. filed under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act) are against the common judgment dated

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

3 entered into a leave and lisence agreement with EIH dated 25.04.1972 for 5665 sft. of Office space for a period of 50 years in Oberoi Sheraton Hotel at Bombay, on certain terms and conditions as mentioned in the said agreement. As per the said agreement, the assesse-company is to pay compensation for each month on or before

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

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. L. SURYAKANTHAM, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

13. Shri Dadariya adopted the arguments advanced by Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate and supplemented by submitting that levy of entry tax under the impugned Act is clearly discriminatory as the cumulative burden of taxes on goods that are imported into the State is higher than the cumulative burden of taxes on goods that are locally produced or manufactured. Therefore

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

3. The petitioner also disclosed in the eviction petitions that the petitioner had earlier filed a civil suit being CS No.11/2001 for ejectment mesne profit, recovery of rent and possession in the year 2000-01 titled as „Shri Harminder Singh Koghar Vs. Shri Radhey Lall‟ in respect of eviction of the suit property which was still sub-judice before