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

Bench: The Learned

147 read with Section 143(3) of the Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date:13.05.2025 15:59:36 Signature Not Verified ITA 127/2025 Page 2 of 10 Act. 3. The subject matter of controversy in the appeals before the learned ITAT centres around the Assessee’s claim for deduction under Section 54F of the Act. 4. The Assessee filed

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

house property. The said provision reads as follows: ITAs 166, 168, 243, 778/2006 Page 8 “Section 23. ANNUAL VALUE HOW DETERMINED. (1) For the purposes of section 22, the annual value of any property shall be deemed to be - (a) The sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year; or (b) Where

The Commissioner of Income -Tax - III, vs. Shri Taher Ali

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

House Rates Control Act, 1947 3 / 79 CRA-322-08gr (for short, 'Act'). The leaned trial Judge also accepted grounds under section 13(1)(e) (unlawful subletting by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2) and 13(1)(k) (non user of the suit premises by defendant no.1-tenant). The Appellate Court decreed the suit only under section

The Commissioner of Income Tax I vs. Balaji Electro Smelters Limited

house, owned by one person or organization. all the money and property owned by a particular person, especially at death: in his will, he divided his estate between his wife and daughter. a property where coffee, rubber, grapes, or other crops are cultivated. (in South Africa) a registered vineyard producing wines made exclusively from grapes grown within its boundaries

K. Ranjeet Mohan, vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax,

section 147(b) by virtue of proposition (4) of Kalyanji Mavji. The fact that the details of the sales of house property

The Commissioner of Income-Tax - VI, vs. Shri Mekala Bal Reddy

147, 148, 149, 324, 307, 302, 506 and 120B I.P.C., the chargesheet submitted on 03.10.2008 was proved by P.W-10 as Exhibit Ka-'15', being under his signature. In cross, P.W-10 stated that he did not know as to how many persons were injured in the cross case and as to who was the accused person injured in the present case

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

house property at Anand Lok was under demolition and an apartment building was to be constructed there. For those apartments, secret bookings were alleged to have been made and money was received by family members of the petitioners. The note of Respondents No. 2 & 3 there stated that 21 the petitioners did not disclose receipt of compensation in income

M/S VAIBHAV vs. JOINT COMM. OF INCOME TAX RANGE 3 HYD

Appeal is allowed and the judgments and decrees passed by the

Bench: The Learned Trial Court) Was Allowed & The Judgment & Decree Dated 12.12.2000, Passed By Learned Senior Sub Judge, Kullu Was Set-Aside. (Parties Shall Hereinafter Be Referred To In

house 18 will make the sale deed void. This reasoning is not correct. The learned First Appellate Court had itself noticed the definition of the sale in para 21 of its judgment and proceeded to hold in para 22 that the sale is the transfer of the ownership from the vendor to the vendee for the price paid or partly

SRI B.DHANUNJAYARAO vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

house was constructed only for the purpose of pledging with the bank is for fetching and to derive a conclusion that there is an advantage to the company in advalcing such loan. 4.e. Further, the assessee also submitted by way of cross-objections to the appeal frled by the Revenue, wherein the Tribunal had held that the payments made

SRI B.DHANUNJAYARAO vs. DY.COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

house was constructed only for the purpose of pledging with the bank is for fetching and to derive a conclusion that there is an advantage to the company in advalcing such loan. 4.e. Further, the assessee also submitted by way of cross-objections to the appeal frled by the Revenue, wherein the Tribunal had held that the payments made

SMT.B.SEETHARATNAM vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

house was constructed only for the purpose of pledging with the bank is for fetching and to derive a conclusion that there is an advantage to the company in advalcing such loan. 4.e. Further, the assessee also submitted by way of cross-objections to the appeal frled by the Revenue, wherein the Tribunal had held that the payments made

Sampathirao Apparao vs. Income Tax Officer,

The appeals stand dismissed

property. The surrendered income included cash seized from the bank account of Sarup Chand. 5. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 28.04.2009 framed assessment for the assessment year 2007-08 qua both the appellants herein. The assessment order was also passed with respect to tax liability of Sarup Chand. No tax liability was found of Sarup Chand though

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

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

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

properties as alleged. It is submitted that similar submissions were made by HVL before the Joint APLs which is evidenced by the Minutes of the meeting dated 21st July, 2017, similar stand was taken in his affidavit-in-opposition to the administrator's proceedings filed by the respondents in 2008 which culminated in judgment of the Division Bench dated 23rd

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, credits and liabilities of the Company; and, subject to any reasonable restrictions as to the time and manner of inspecting the same that may be imposed in accordance with the regulations of the Company for the time being in force, the accounts shall be open to the inspection of the members. Once at least in every year, the accounts

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

147 of 2013. The reference proceedings and the capital criminal appeal arising out of the same judgment dated 24.12.2012 have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. In order to protect identity of the unfortunate victims of Nithari incident, their names are being anonymized. The Nithari Incident 3. Nithari is a village abutting Sector

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S G.R.K.PRASAD AND OTHERS

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

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

147, 151, 167, 169, 170, 171, 172, 176, 179, 183, 185, 187, 188, 193, 194, 197, 206, 208, 210, 227, 240, 253, 259, 272, 278, 294, 302, 304, 305, 309, 314, 333 of 2003; INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL Nos.74, 126 of 2004; and INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL No.393 of 2005 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) This group

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s Y.Ramakrishna and Others

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

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

147, 151, 167, 169, 170, 171, 172, 176, 179, 183, 185, 187, 188, 193, 194, 197, 206, 208, 210, 227, 240, 253, 259, 272, 278, 294, 302, 304, 305, 309, 314, 333 of 2003; INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL Nos.74, 126 of 2004; and INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL No.393 of 2005 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) This group

COMMISSIONER OFINCOEMETAX vs. M/S. V.SATYANARAYANA AND OTHERS

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

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

147, 151, 167, 169, 170, 171, 172, 176, 179, 183, 185, 187, 188, 193, 194, 197, 206, 208, 210, 227, 240, 253, 259, 272, 278, 294, 302, 304, 305, 309, 314, 333 of 2003; INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL Nos.74, 126 of 2004; and INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL No.393 of 2005 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) This group