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 (Central) vs. Madhu Enterprises

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

Section- 94(3) of the JVAT Act, to contend inter-alia that since the rules are required to be placed before the State Legislature, the same by itself necessarily implies that the Rule making power conferred upon the State Government enabled the State Government to frame rules with retrospective effect. 43. In our opinion, the said contention raised

S.l. Shiva Raj vs. Commissioner of Income Tax,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section- 94(3) of the JVAT Act, to contend inter-alia that since the rules are required to be placed before the State Legislature, the same by itself necessarily implies that the Rule making power conferred upon the State Government enabled the State Government to frame rules with retrospective effect. 43. In our opinion, the said contention raised

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

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

8] and Commissioner of Income Tax v Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (2)[9]. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION The main point for consideration is whether AMCs constituted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under Section 4 of the AMC Act are institutions established for advancement of the object of general public utility and, therefore, exist for charitable purpose. All other questions

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

8] and Commissioner of Income Tax v Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (2)[9]. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION The main point for consideration is whether AMCs constituted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under Section 4 of the AMC Act are institutions established for advancement of the object of general public utility and, therefore, exist for charitable purpose. All other questions

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-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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

8. The brief facts necessary for the appeals under consideration could be summarised as follows: Sri.C.C Joy married Smt.C.D Mini on 10.09.1989. At that time, he was running a home appliances shop. After marriage, a telephone booth and a beauty parlour were started in a portion of that shop and Smt. Mini was its licensee. As they could not bear

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Dr. T.Ravi Kumar

The appeal is disposed of

housing project by virtue of Section 13(8) of the Act would become part of total 6 income under the Act. It was further held that in the light of aforesaid retrospective amendment of the law, the application of income for charitable purposes becomes irrelevant. It was further held that income derived from business cannot be considered as income derived

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

8 of the order of the CIT appeal dated 07.01.2008; Clause III Part B (objects anciliary to the main objects) provides as under:- “to acquire on a licence, premises suitable for housing and accommodating shops, boutiques, stores, offices, showrooms for the purpose of making the same available on the basis of lease and licence or sub-licence

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

13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant denied the charge and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove the charge against the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 36 witnesses. The statement of the accused appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has also been recorded in which he denied the circumstances appears against

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.V.S.T.Industries Ltd

Appeal is allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

house.” (emphasis is mine) 7(i). As per the ratio of the Supreme Court in the case of Yudhishter (supra) after passing of the Hindu Succession Act, RFA No.268/2006 Page 8 of 21 1956 the position which traditionally existed with respect to an automatic right of a person in properties inherited by his paternal predecessors-in-interest from the latter

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 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 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

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

Bench: The Learned

13. In terms of clause (i) to the proviso to Section 54F(1) of the act, the said section would not apply if the assessee owned more than one residential house. Clause (i) of the proviso to Section 54F of the Act is extracted below: “Section 54F. Capital gain on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged

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