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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

housing loans to them, without making proper pre-sanction verifications, and accepting forged income tax returns, and without ensuring the end use of funds. Sri.Joy was found guilty and convicted along with the other accused, and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years each and fine, under Section 120B read with Sections

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

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

16]. In Valliappa Textiles Limited, the Managing Director of the said company was sought to be prosecuted under Sections 276C, 277 and 278 read with Section 278B of the IT Act. The accused moved the Karnataka High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the prosecution, they were successful. The High Court quashed the prosecution

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

16]. In Valliappa Textiles Limited, the Managing Director of the said company was sought to be prosecuted under Sections 276C, 277 and 278 read with Section 278B of the IT Act. The accused moved the Karnataka High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the prosecution, they were successful. The High Court quashed the prosecution

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

Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act (20 of 1954), S.26(c) – Power of High Court in revision under section – It is narrower than in appeal and is similar to one under Section 115, Civil P.C. - High Court commits error in reappreciating evidence.” (iii) Vasant Mahadeo Gujar Vs. Baitulla Ismail Shaikh, CRA No.770 of 2013 dt. 04th August, 2015 (Bom.H.C

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

16. Section 5 provides lbr establishment of Special Court. Section 94 of the Specral Clourt Act deals with jurisdiction, powers, authority ald pror:edure of Special Court in civil matters. Whal is relevant for our present discourse is sub- section (1) of Section 9A. It says that on and from the commencement of the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

16. Section 5 provides lbr establishment of Special Court. Section 94 of the Specral Clourt Act deals with jurisdiction, powers, authority ald pror:edure of Special Court in civil matters. Whal is relevant for our present discourse is sub- section (1) of Section 9A. It says that on and from the commencement of the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

16. Section 5 provides lbr establishment of Special Court. Section 94 of the Specral Clourt Act deals with jurisdiction, powers, authority ald pror:edure of Special Court in civil matters. Whal is relevant for our present discourse is sub- section (1) of Section 9A. It says that on and from the commencement of the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating

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

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Nara Constructions,

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

property and to contract and by that name, sue and be sued. The object with which the National Housing Bank (herein after referred to as NHB/ Bank for short] was established is to provide long term finance for construction and/or purchase of residential housing or residential township-cum-housing development or slum clearance projects. The entire capital

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

houses are not really the objects, but were clauses stipulating the powers of the trustees. Having thus made a distinction between the objects and powers, the CIT (Appeals) proceeded to examine Section 11(4A) vis-à- vis Section 11(4) of the Act. He held that the amended provisions of Section 11(4A) would apply from the assessment year

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) vs. M/s. NAtional Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.,

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act. III) Whether the property could not be subjected to specific performance, it being joint family property and the defendant having only limited interest therein. IV) Whether the learned Trial Court erred in law, as well as on facts, in exercising discretion. 11. As far as proof of agreement is concerned, the plaintiff

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. M/S NMDC LIMITED

In the result, this Appeal Suit is partly allowed by modifying the

Bench: The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court Reserved On : 19.03.2024 Delivered On : 18.06.2024 Coram The Hon'Ble Mrs.Justice L.Victoria Gowri A.S.(Md)No.110 Of 2015 1.S.Govindasamy 2.S.Rajaraman 3.S.Kalaiselvan ... Appellants

Section 8 of Indian Succession Act, 1956. Thus, categorically contending that the judgment of the learned Trial Court need to be modified with respect to the property in item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and 11th item, that is the temple property and all the other reliefs as granted by the learned Trial Court is absolutely valid

Smt.Sudia Indira vs. The Income Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal from order stand dismissed

house property in  Madurai town was rising fast and this must have induced the  plaintiff to wake up after 21/2 years and demand specific  performance. 11.  Sri  Sivasubramanium  cited  the  decision of  the  Madras High Court in S. V. Sankaraninga Nadar v. P.T.S.  Ratnaswamy Nadar. AIR 1952 Mad 389 holding that mere rise  in prices is no ground for denying

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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Housing Society admeasuring 829.25 sq.mtrs. was of the individual ownership of the petitioner Pannaben Niranjan Mehta and was her self-acquired property. Thus the petitioner was the holder of the land in question within the meaning of the said term as envisaged under the provisions of the Act. In the circumstances, as prescribed under Rule 5 of the Rules read

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.

16 deals with personal bars to relief of specific performance. Section 17 deals with contract to sell or let property by one who has no title. Section 18 deals with non-enforcement except with variation. The person against whom a contract can be enforced are set out in Section CS(OS) No.486/2011 Page 35 19. It must be noted here

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

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

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as held by the Supreme Court in Shrimant Shamrao Suryavanshi vs' Prahlad a:.1 11 Bhairoba Suryavanshir2, the following conditions are required to be fulfilled: "(1) there must be a contract to transfer for consideration of any immovabie propert5r; (21 tt.e contract must be in writing, signed by the transferor