The commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s Lanco Kondapalli Power (P) Ltd

House, Nhava Sheva. 5. Commissioner of Customs, Office of the Commissioner of Customs (NS-1), Jawaharlal Nehru Customs House, Nhava Sheva. …Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2091 OF 2022 Balkrishna Industries Ltd, Page 108 of 198 22nd March 2024 Saurer Textile Solutions Pvt Ltd v The State of Maharashtra & Ors & Connected Writ Petitions 1-2-oswp-1494-2023-J+.docx

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

Bench: The Learned

6. The AO passed an assessment order dated 27.03.2015 under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Act restricting the deduction under Section 54F to ₹30 crores, as against ₹90 crores claimed by the Assessee. 7. The Assessee had deposited the consideration in the capital gains account in two tranches – ₹30 crores on 28.07.2011 and ₹60 crores

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

143(3) of the Acr, thc assessinli officer treatecl the interest amount u,hicl'r r.l.as u,orked out b1, the asscssce itself at Rs.47.03 crores as income beinrl intercst due lrom Fair Grou,th and on that basis, proceerled to completc the assessment. B. Aggrievcd thereb1,, assessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (Central), Hyderabad (briefly

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

143(3) of the Acr, thc assessinli officer treatecl the interest amount u,hicl'r r.l.as u,orked out b1, the asscssce itself at Rs.47.03 crores as income beinrl intercst due lrom Fair Grou,th and on that basis, proceerled to completc the assessment. B. Aggrievcd thereb1,, assessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (Central), Hyderabad (briefly

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

143(3) of the Acr, thc assessinli officer treatecl the interest amount u,hicl'r r.l.as u,orked out b1, the asscssce itself at Rs.47.03 crores as income beinrl intercst due lrom Fair Grou,th and on that basis, proceerled to completc the assessment. B. Aggrievcd thereb1,, assessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (Central), Hyderabad (briefly

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Sri N.Sai Baba Naidu

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

143(3), the assessing officer examined the contention of the assessee that the rental income of `1,76,40,000/-, fell to be assessed under the head “income from house property”. He perused the rental agreements and found that the rent consisted of three components i.e. (1) rent for building, (2) rent for the furniture, fittings and fixtures

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

property (i.e. the business undertaking) being held under trust in accordance with Section 11(4) of the Act. He accordingly directed the assessing officer to allow the exemption. ITA 309/2003,417/2003,18/2004,722/2007,770/2011,1050/2011 and 1051/2011 Page 4 of 20 6. In respect of the assessment year 1992-93, which is the first assessment year with which

The Commissioner of Income Tax-V vs. M/s.Sri Somnath Wood Industries

In the result, revision application succeeds

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

143 of 2008. 2. It was a suit for possession of the premises, particularly described in paragraph no.1 of the plaint, on the grounds of default in payment of rent, permanent construction without written consent of the landlord and bonafide 2 / 12 CRA-24-10.odt requirement. The plaintiff failed on all the three counts before both the Courts below. For the sake

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

6 partnership firm. Hence there was no valid warrant of authorisation in the name of Assessee. Therefore, there was no valid search under Section 132(1) of Act, 1961 at the premises of Assessee. (b) All consequential actions such as, seizure, issue of notice under Section 158 BC and consequential Block Assessment in the hands of Assessee i.e. “M/s. Verma

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/S Sri Krishna Drugs Ltd.,

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

house property, (by taking annual value @ `.75,000/- per month for each of the assessment years) was not justified. The additions were deleted. The revenue’s appeal to the ITAT was rejected by the impugned order. 4. The assumption of jurisdiction to re-assess the income had been upheld by the CIT (A); this was challenged by the assessee

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

6 SC 47 LA.AP. 59/207 & conected Page 93 of 171 19 .2 It was further contended that the market value of the land as asesed by learned Reference Court is at Rs. 89,60/ - per Bigha . Learned Reference Court gave findings that the acquired land situated in the riverbed on the —Forward Bund“ wil be covered with water during some

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Sri Laxmi Narasimha Wines,

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

6 SC 47 LA.AP. 59/207 & conected Page 93 of 171 19 .2 It was further contended that the market value of the land as asesed by learned Reference Court is at Rs. 89,60/ - per Bigha . Learned Reference Court gave findings that the acquired land situated in the riverbed on the —Forward Bund“ wil be covered with water during some

M/SVISWARUPA BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS P LTD/. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD/3(I) HYDERABAD

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

Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), the assessee has filed returns disclosing “nil” income, claiming the rental income and maintenance charges as “income from business source”. The assessee has claimed the expenditure and depreciation on building, and maintenance. The Assessing Officer (AO), on consideration of the accounts and the legal position, treated the rental

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

The Commissioner of income tax, vs. M/s.Y.Ramulu and Others

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

property or whatever may be the object of the tax in a particular case and determining its amount”. Section 35 of the 1922 Act conferred power on the Commissioner or the Appellate Commissioner to suo motu rectify any mistake apparent on the record, appeal, revision, assessment or refund within four years from the date of such order

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.B.Satyanarayana AND Others

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

property or whatever may be the object of the tax in a particular case and determining its amount”. Section 35 of the 1922 Act conferred power on the Commissioner or the Appellate Commissioner to suo motu rectify any mistake apparent on the record, appeal, revision, assessment or refund within four years from the date of such order

Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajahmundry. vs. m/s Ganesh Arrack Contractors,

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

property or whatever may be the object of the tax in a particular case and determining its amount”. Section 35 of the 1922 Act conferred power on the Commissioner or the Appellate Commissioner to suo motu rectify any mistake apparent on the record, appeal, revision, assessment or refund within four years from the date of such order