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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

19, it is stated that all the real estate transactions of Sri.Joy are not brought on record, to maintain his business secrecy, and also due to fear that Smt.Mini might create impediments for sale of some of the properties that are not on record. In paragraph 27, he would admit that he had purchased properties in the name of Smt.Mini

Commissioner of Income tax-VI vs. M/s. Narpat Girji Constructions,

The appeal is allowed

19 of 2015 thereunder as void against the Liquidator. The Section 531A of the Companies Act provides for avoidance of the voluntary transfer made by the Company within a period of 1 year before presentation of the petition for winding up. 23. The learned Company Judge held that for meagre amount of Rs.2,84,000/- would be paid over

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

Bench: The Learned

property was taken over on 02.09.2014, but not registered as 100% payment is made to the seller only in financial year 2013-14.” 19. It is clear from the above that separate floors of the singular house bearing the address D-6/5 Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, were purchased by the family members of the Assessee. The fact that different

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

19. The learned ARC further dissected the issue of bonafide requirement for residential purposes of Harminder Singh Koghar on two counts i.e. firstly regarding progress in the two businesses and secondly that there were negotiations for sale of the suit property between the two parties. 20. Learned ARC in Paras 43.3 and 43.4 of the impugned judgment held that

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

19.O3.1997 by holding that the ready and forward contracts were severable into two parts - i.e., the ready leg and the forward leg. While the ready leg was legal, the forward leg was illegal. 10.2. In the case of the appellant, Special Court by its order passed in 1997 declared it to be the owner of the n. () bonds valued

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

19.O3.1997 by holding that the ready and forward contracts were severable into two parts - i.e., the ready leg and the forward leg. While the ready leg was legal, the forward leg was illegal. 10.2. In the case of the appellant, Special Court by its order passed in 1997 declared it to be the owner of the n. () bonds valued

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

19.O3.1997 by holding that the ready and forward contracts were severable into two parts - i.e., the ready leg and the forward leg. While the ready leg was legal, the forward leg was illegal. 10.2. In the case of the appellant, Special Court by its order passed in 1997 declared it to be the owner of the n. () bonds valued

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

The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) vs. Madhu Enterprises

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

Section- 94(3) of the JVAT Act, to contend inter-alia that since the rules are required to be placed before the State Legislature, the same by itself necessarily implies that the Rule making power conferred upon the State Government enabled the State Government to frame rules with retrospective effect. 43. In our opinion, the said contention raised

S.l. Shiva Raj vs. Commissioner of Income Tax,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section- 94(3) of the JVAT Act, to contend inter-alia that since the rules are required to be placed before the State Legislature, the same by itself necessarily implies that the Rule making power conferred upon the State Government enabled the State Government to frame rules with retrospective effect. 43. In our opinion, the said contention raised

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, Guntur. vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Kangiri.

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

house for traders (para 35 of Sreenivasa Traders). Section 12 of the AMC Act read with Rule 74 of the Rules empower the market committee to levy and collect fees on any notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock purchased or sold in the market at the rate as specified in the bye-laws of the AMC made

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

house for traders (para 35 of Sreenivasa Traders). Section 12 of the AMC Act read with Rule 74 of the Rules empower the market committee to levy and collect fees on any notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock purchased or sold in the market at the rate as specified in the bye-laws of the AMC made

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

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 in the owner's portion wttl:, 4ooh terrace rights. 6. That as a performance guarantee the Second Party have deposited an amount of Rs.2,0O,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) with First Party vide Pay Order No'OO2314 dated 04.05.1996 for Rs.2,O0,OOO/- (Rupees two lakhs only) drawn on Bank of Bahrain and Kuwait B'S'C', Somajiguda

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Dr. T.Ravi Kumar,

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 10Th April, 2024. Appearance: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjay Bhowmick, Advocate Ms. Swapna Das, Advocate … For The Appellant. Ms. Smita Das De, Advocate … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Sanjay Bhowmick, Learned Counsel For The Appellant/Assessee & Ms. Smita Das De, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Respondent. 2. The Assessment Years Involved In The Present Appeal Are Assessment Year 1999-2000 & Assessment Year 2000-01. By Order Dated 16.08.2012, This Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :-

Section 24(1)(i)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1961’). Thus, in the revised return the assessee disclosed income of Rs.11,25,000/- under the head ‘income from house property’ and loss of Rs.2,19

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

HOUSING PVT.LTD ...... Respondent Through: Mr. M.S. Syali, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arta Trana Panda and Ms. Gargi Sethee, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 5 of 36 J U D G M E N T Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.: 1. These are 11 appeals under Section 260-A of the Income

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

HOUSING PVT.LTD ...... Respondent Through: Mr. M.S. Syali, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arta Trana Panda and Ms. Gargi Sethee, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 5 of 36 J U D G M E N T Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.: 1. These are 11 appeals under Section 260-A of the Income