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

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

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

4 of the AMC Act, as mandated by Section 15 of the AMC Act read with Rule 27 of the Rules, is required to establish general or special market places or market yards in the notified area and provide facilities like rest house for ryots, electrification of market yard, auction-cum-weighing shed, auction platforms, internal roads, telephone booth, canteen

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

4 of the AMC Act, as mandated by Section 15 of the AMC Act read with Rule 27 of the Rules, is required to establish general or special market places or market yards in the notified area and provide facilities like rest house for ryots, electrification of market yard, auction-cum-weighing shed, auction platforms, internal roads, telephone booth, canteen

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

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

4. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the appellant assessee had filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) which was allowed, holding that the income derived by the appellant assessee from letting out of shopping space to different persons is business income. Aggrieved with the order of CIT (A) the Income Tax Department had filed an appeal being

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

4 and odd cents was excluded. Though she would say that, there was a sale agreement for this property, she does not know its details. She is not able to say anything about the agreement for purchasing that property. The total consideration for that property was Rs.3,60,000/-. Though she deposed that she has got some documents to prove

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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

4 are built up properties the same are to be taken into consideration while computing the extent of vacant land held by the applicant. The Competent Authority found that the total holding of the applicant was 1685 sq. mts. and held that the applicant was entitled to retain 1000 sq. mts. of land and declared 685 sq. mts. of land

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX vs. M/S V.SATAYANARAYANA

The appeal is allowed

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

house at 7 o'clock in the evening. The girl was unconscious during the day. PW 2 told her husband as to what had happened to their daughter. The police station was at a distance of 15 km. According to the testimony of PW 1 no mode of conveyance was available. The police was reported to the next day morning

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

4 of the Specinl Cou rt Ar-.t should lrc orotected. 18.2. Further 'lribunaLl nored that insofar the assessee is concerned, the transactions were entered into prior to introduction of the Spccral Court Act. Assessee had purchased the bonds prior to the notifred date and had taken delivery thereof. It, thus, became property of the assessee ald could

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

4 of the Specinl Cou rt Ar-.t should lrc orotected. 18.2. Further 'lribunaLl nored that insofar the assessee is concerned, the transactions were entered into prior to introduction of the Spccral Court Act. Assessee had purchased the bonds prior to the notifred date and had taken delivery thereof. It, thus, became property of the assessee ald could

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

4 of the Specinl Cou rt Ar-.t should lrc orotected. 18.2. Further 'lribunaLl nored that insofar the assessee is concerned, the transactions were entered into prior to introduction of the Spccral Court Act. Assessee had purchased the bonds prior to the notifred date and had taken delivery thereof. It, thus, became property of the assessee ald could

Commissioner of Income Tax- IT and TP vs. M/s. Louis Berger International Inc.,

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

4 to 9 of the 2007 Rules. 16.6. The proper officer can raise doubts as to the truth or accuracy Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:27.11.2024 18:20:25 Signature Not Verified CUSAA 26/2022 & connected matters Page 50 of 137 of the declared value on ―certain reasons‖ which could include the grounds specified in sub-clauses

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s. Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

4 to 9 of the 2007 Rules. 16.6. The proper officer can raise doubts as to the truth or accuracy Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:27.11.2024 18:20:25 Signature Not Verified CUSAA 26/2022 & connected matters Page 50 of 137 of the declared value on ―certain reasons‖ which could include the grounds specified in sub-clauses

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.V.S.T.Industries Ltd

Appeal is allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

house.” (emphasis is mine) 7(i). As per the ratio of the Supreme Court in the case of Yudhishter (supra) after passing of the Hindu Succession Act, RFA No.268/2006 Page 8 of 21 1956 the position which traditionally existed with respect to an automatic right of a person in properties inherited by his paternal predecessors-in-interest from the latter

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

The appeal is allowed

4. The Mysore Kirloskar Limited was ordered to be wound up by the Company Court vide order dated 01.04.2004 in Company Petition No.166/2001 and the Official Liquidator attached to this Court was appointed as Liquidator of the Company (in liquidation) by virtue of provisions of Section 449 of the Companies Act, 1956. 5. Consequences of the winding up in respect

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

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

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

4) of section 80-IA; and (iii) an undertaking referred to in sub-section (10) of section 80- IB; (h) "long-term finance" means any loan or advance where the terms under which moneys are loaned or advanced provide for repayment along with interest thereof during a period of not less than five years;” As per the amended provisions