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

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

iii) grant of loans to the market committees at such rates of interest as are charged on loans granted by the Government for development purposes; and (iv) such other similar or allied purposes as may be specified by the Government by general or special order.” 14. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 33 of the Act, the State

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

iii) grant of loans to the market committees at such rates of interest as are charged on loans granted by the Government for development purposes; and (iv) such other similar or allied purposes as may be specified by the Government by general or special order.” 14. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 33 of the Act, the State

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

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.

2 3. The disputes between the parties are in relation to the Collaboration/Construction Agreement dated 21.08.1985 executed between the petitioner as “Builders”, respondent no.1 as “ Owners” and respondent nos.2 and 3 as “Confirmers”. 4. The respondent no.1 is the owner/lessee of property No.1 Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the „said property‟). Respondent no.2 is the tenant

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Srimantha Granites

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act, prior to amendment, does not indicate measurement of distance aerially. We have also perused the Notification dated 06.01.1994 relied upon by Shri. Shankar. In column No.4 of the Schedule to the Notification, the distance is mentioned as 8 kms. from municipal limits in all directions. 18. It is salutary principle of interpretation

The Commissioner of Income-tax-I, vs. Derco Cooling Coils Ltd,

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act, prior to amendment, does not indicate measurement of distance aerially. We have also perused the Notification dated 06.01.1994 relied upon by Shri. Shankar. In column No.4 of the Schedule to the Notification, the distance is mentioned as 8 kms. from municipal limits in all directions. 18. It is salutary principle of interpretation

The Commissioner of Income Tax- I vs. Harmahendar Singh Bagga

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act, prior to amendment, does not indicate measurement of distance aerially. We have also perused the Notification dated 06.01.1994 relied upon by Shri. Shankar. In column No.4 of the Schedule to the Notification, the distance is mentioned as 8 kms. from municipal limits in all directions. 18. It is salutary principle of interpretation

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S The A.P.Mahesh Coop. Urban Bank Ltd,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

property and Rs.83,60,46,867/- as income from the business of banking. The assessee claimed deduction of business income under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act. The assessing officer, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax took up the return for scrutiny and found that the assessee had Rs.61,87,16,546/- as statutory reserve

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/s. The A.P.Vardhaman(Mahila)Cooperative Urban

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

property and Rs.83,60,46,867/- as income from the business of banking. The assessee claimed deduction of business income under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act. The assessing officer, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax took up the return for scrutiny and found that the assessee had Rs.61,87,16,546/- as statutory reserve

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. The Andhra Bank Employees Co.Operative Bank Limited

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

property and Rs.83,60,46,867/- as income from the business of banking. The assessee claimed deduction of business income under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act. The assessing officer, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax took up the return for scrutiny and found that the assessee had Rs.61,87,16,546/- as statutory reserve

Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. The Agrasen Coop. Urban Bank Ltd.,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

property and Rs.83,60,46,867/- as income from the business of banking. The assessee claimed deduction of business income under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act. The assessing officer, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax took up the return for scrutiny and found that the assessee had Rs.61,87,16,546/- as statutory reserve

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Prefab Gratings Limited,

Bench: Honourable Mr. Justice Manish Choudhury Judgment & Order (Cav) Date : 24-05-2019

HOUSING COMPLEX R.G. BARUAH ROAD CHANDMARI GUWAHATI P.S. CHANDMARI GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM. 4:MD. MATIUR RAHMAN S/O ALHAZ AHMADUR RAHMAN R/O MOROMI PATH HATIGAON Page No.# 2/26 GUWAHATI-38 DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM. 5:MD. ABDUR RAHMAN S/O MD. ABDUL ALI R/O DEHAR KUNIHA ADHIYAPARA HAJO P.S. HAJO DIST.KAMRUP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.P HUJURI Advocate for the Respondent

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

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

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

iii) of the Explanation. 16.7. The proper officer, on a request made by the importer, has to furnish and intimate to the importer in writing the grounds for doubting the truth or accuracy of the value declared in relation to the imported goods. Thus, the proper officer has to record reasons in writing which have to be communicated when requested