THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI METTAM PENCHALA NAIDU

Bench: This Court That The 1St Assessment Order Of The Ito Was Passed On 28.03.1988, Which Was Challenged Before The Leaned Cit (A) & The Same Was Dismissed On 28.11.1988. Against The Said Order, The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Itat, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, Which Was Dismissed On 19.01.1990. Thereafter, By Order Dated 13.12.1990 Passed In A Misc. Application, The Order Dated 19.01.1990 Was Recalled & The Matter Was Heard Afresh. Again On 10.05.1991, Learned Tribunal Decided The Matter & Allowed The Exemption To The Assessee. The Revenue Filed Writ Petition Before This Court Challenging The Rectification Order Dated 13.12.1990. This Court On 02.12.1991 Allowed The Writ Petition & Quashed The Recalling Order Dated 13.12.1990 As Well As Its Substantive Order Dated

1) of section 148 or section 153A relating to the assessment year -10- commencing [on the 1st day of April, [2013]] shall,— [(a) in the case of a person being an individual where the total income includes income chargeable to income-tax, under the head,— (i) “Salaries” or income in the nature of family pension as defined in the Explanation

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

Bench: This Court That The 1St Assessment Order Of The Ito Was Passed On 28.03.1988, Which Was Challenged Before The Leaned Cit (A) & The Same Was Dismissed On 28.11.1988. Against The Said Order, The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Itat, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, Which Was Dismissed On 19.01.1990. Thereafter, By Order Dated 13.12.1990 Passed In A Misc. Application, The Order Dated 19.01.1990 Was Recalled & The Matter Was Heard Afresh. Again On 10.05.1991, Learned Tribunal Decided The Matter & Allowed The Exemption To The Assessee. The Revenue Filed Writ Petition Before This Court Challenging The Rectification Order Dated 13.12.1990. This Court On 02.12.1991 Allowed The Writ Petition & Quashed The Recalling Order Dated 13.12.1990 As Well As Its Substantive Order Dated

1) of section 148 or section 153A relating to the assessment year -10- commencing [on the 1st day of April, [2013]] shall,— [(a) in the case of a person being an individual where the total income includes income chargeable to income-tax, under the head,— (i) “Salaries” or income in the nature of family pension as defined in the Explanation

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 Pr. Commissioner of Income tax (Central), vs. Sri Vaishnavi Educational Society,

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.51929/2014 C/W W.P.Nos.42063/2012, 30494/2013, 42671/2013, 638/2014, 797/2014, 1089/2014, 3211/2014, 3389/2014, 6180/2014, 10356/2014, 12014/2014, 12015/2014, 13043/2014, 13045/2014, 13206/2014, 13207/2014, 13398/2014, 13774/2014, 14149/2014, 14161/2014, 14494/2014, 14502/2014, 14521/2014, 14689/2014, 16646/2014, 17051/2014, 17594/2014, 19729/2014, 21158/2014, 23897/2014, 28861/2014, 30731/2014, 31723/2014, 33774/2014, 33777/2014, 34084/2014, 34259/2014, 34272/2014, 34391/2014, 35204/2014, 35243/2014, 35247/2014, 35305/2014, 35609/2014, 36164/2014, 36166/2014, 36489/2014, 36525/2014, 36971/2014, 37446/2014, 38055/2014, 38463/2014, 38471/2014, 38472/2014, 38661/2014, 38753/2014, 39383/2014, 39633/2014, 39832/2014, 40204/2014, 40379/2014, 41394/2014, 41422/2014, 41427/2014, 41428/2014, 41858/2014, 43815/2014, 43963/2014, 44306/2014, 44527/2014, 44742/2014, 44835/2014, 45486/2014, 46766/2014, 47103/2014, 47105/2014, 47106/2014, 47107/2014, 47608/2014, 47731/2014, 47821/2014, 47860/2014, 47913/2014, 48577/2014, 48880/2014, 49567/2014, 50260/2014, 50533/2014, 51294/2014, 51930/2014, 51931/2014, 51932/2014, 52760/2014, 53854/2014, 54059/2014, 54083/2014, 54236/2014

1. STATE OF KARNTAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001 2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE-560020 3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE-560020 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.V. SHASHIKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI. M.N. RAMANJANEYA GOWDA, ADVOCATE

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

1)(e) DRC Act, no landlord can sell the premises till three years of the eviction without the permission of the Court. Thus the apprehension that suit property is not required as the petitioner wants to sell the same is unfounded and cannot be a ground to reject the eviction petition. Supreme Court while dealing with a provision similar

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

Bench: The Learned

property bearing address D-6/5, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. According to the AO, the basement and second floor were required to be considered as two separate residential houses. 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

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

SMT. SHANTHA VIDYASAGAR ANNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2) HYDERABAD

In the result, the orders dated 09

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

148 of the Act was issued to her. In response to the said notice, assessee filed return of income on 27 .1 1.2OOO, wherein the assessee declared her income as Nil. However, in the note accompanying the return, the assessee stated that she had entered into a development agreement on 04.05.1996 with a builder for construction of residential flats

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

148 to 153, assess or re-assess any income chargeable to tax which he has reason to believe, has escaped assessment and any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which has come to his notice subsequently. The proviso to Section 147 lays down that where an assessment u/s 143(3) has been made, no action shall

Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

148 of 2O11- are as under: \ \ \\ L I : 2 There is nothing in the language of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act to annul the conveyances affected during the pendency of the suit. The purport of Section 52 is to render conveyances affected during the peqdency of the suit sub-servient to the result of the suit

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agrilcultural Market Committee

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

148 of 2O11- are as under: \ \ \\ L I : 2 There is nothing in the language of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act to annul the conveyances affected during the pendency of the suit. The purport of Section 52 is to render conveyances affected during the peqdency of the suit sub-servient to the result of the suit

M/s. Sathavahana Ispat Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

1. One common issue arises in these appeals except in ITA No.363/2007. However, even in that appeal shadow of earlier appeals falls. Moreover, all these appeals except ITA No.363/2007 arise out of same judgment, though these appeals relate to different assessment years, i.e., assessment years 1996- 97 to 1999-2000 (ITA No.363/2007 pertains to assessment year 2000-01). The issue

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

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

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

1 3 .1.1959 pertaining to vilage Kilokari, it was contended that at that time a uniform rate of compensation was awarded by the LAC for diferent types of land, i.e., GM Nala, Sailab i , Chahi and Rosli and compensation of Rs.26,0/ - per Bigha was awarded irespective of the type of land. Learned Counsel contends that LAC has used

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

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

1 3 .1.1959 pertaining to vilage Kilokari, it was contended that at that time a uniform rate of compensation was awarded by the LAC for diferent types of land, i.e., GM Nala, Sailab i , Chahi and Rosli and compensation of Rs.26,0/ - per Bigha was awarded irespective of the type of land. Learned Counsel contends that LAC has used

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

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