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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

17 items of immovable properties. Mat.Appeal No.242 of 2012 & conn. cases 21 ANALYSIS I. Item No.17 in O.P No.559 of 2006 31. Item No.17 in O.P No.559 of 2006 is in the joint name of Smt.Mini, Sri.Joy and Milan. That property is extending 70 and odd cents in Kadupassery village comprised in survey No.380/1. That property was purchased

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 24 (a) computed the income from house property at Rs. 9,73,182/-. 14. As per objects in the Memorandum of Association and also as per assessment order, the assessee is engaged in business of licensing the space in question. In this regard the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order is reproduced below:- “During

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Chirla Rama Reddy, Contract

Appeal is dismissed with costs

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice N.K.Sudhindrarao R.S.A.No.70/2007

Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, as under: “Sale” defined.—‘‘Sale” is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part- paid and part-promised. Sale how made.—Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion

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

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 13 confers overriding effect on the Special Court Act. It says that provisions of the Special Court Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act or in any decree or order

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 13 confers overriding effect on the Special Court Act. It says that provisions of the Special Court Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act or in any decree or order

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 13 confers overriding effect on the Special Court Act. It says that provisions of the Special Court Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act or in any decree or order

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

17. Thus, if a property is held under trust, and such property is a business, the case would fall under Section 11(4) and not under Section 11(4A) of the Act. Section 11(4A) of the Act, would apply only to a case where the business is not held under trust. 18. In view of the above settled legal

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Sri Anand Prakash Sanghi

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

17(1A) of the Registration Act, 1908, which makes it compulsory for a sale agreement to be registered to have effect of part performance under section 53A of the TP Act. Unless such an agreement was registered, it would not have any effect in law. That is, in the eyes of law, there would be no ITA 33/10 -8- contract

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s.Value Labs

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

house and other landed property and is a Government Servant is earning sufficiently and opposite party no. 2 has rightly been directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant-opposite party no. 2 under Section 19 (f) of the D. V. Act. It is submitted that expense of -7- Rs. 30,000/- was incurred towards the medical expenses

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

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

property and may by its corporate name sue and be sued. It is settled law that a body corporate is a person. We may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (Assessment-II) v M/s.Valliappa Textiles Limited[16]. In Valliappa Textiles Limited, the Managing Director of the said company was sought to be prosecuted under Sections

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

property and may by its corporate name sue and be sued. It is settled law that a body corporate is a person. We may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (Assessment-II) v M/s.Valliappa Textiles Limited[16]. In Valliappa Textiles Limited, the Managing Director of the said company was sought to be prosecuted under Sections

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.

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 that though under the aforesaid sections, a contract may be specifically

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M.G.S. Kamal Regular First Appeal No.294 Of 2012 (Par) C/W Regular First Appeal No.196 Of 2012 Regular First Appeal No.347 Of 2014

HOUSE", GAREBHOVIPALYA, 7ST MILE HOSUR ROAD BANGALORE-560 068. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VISHWANATHA K.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT INDRAMMA W/O RAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS GARVEBHAVIPALYA BEGUR HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 068. 2. SMT. RADHAMMA W/O GOPAL REDDY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/A GARVEBHAVIPALYA BEGUR HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 068. 3. N R GUPTA

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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

17. We also feel that there is logic behind such provision under section 10(6) of the Act that when declarant failed to deliver possession even after issuance of notice under section 10(5) of the Act. The authorities can notify date for taking possession by issuing notice under section 10(6) of the Act. If such notice under section

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

house propery. 5. The assessing offrcer by arr order d,ated 21.O2.2OO2 inter atia held that the clevelopment agreement dated 04.05.1,196 is a transfer within the meaning of Section 2$7) of the Act. The assessing officer firrther held that the assessee is not eetitled to benefit of Section 54F of the Act. The assessing officer, therefore, determined

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

17 where the Supreme Court held that where a person buys and sells property, the income from that activity should be assessed as business income whereas the rental income from such property is assessed as income from house property. 44. For AY 1995-96, the CIT (A) in the order dated 30th October 1998 agreed with the Assessee and held