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

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

15) of the IT Act, it will have to be deemed that the amount spent by the Marketing Committees is spent towards public purposes. Yet again in Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (2), another Division Bench of the M.P.High Court reiterated the earlier view and held that, “the market committees fulfil the requirements of Section 12A and 12AA and are, therefore

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Sri.G.Sanjay Chowdary

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

property and to carry out building and engineering operations and to take all steps for the purpose of development of the Belagavi urban area. (e) The activity of the respondent is thus a charitable activity as defined under the expression ‘charitable trust’ is defined under section 2(15) of the Act. The activity of the respondent comes within the scope

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s Pokarna Limited

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

2 acres 25.61 guntas of land. A portion of the property was idle. This prompted the assessee to dispose off the property in question in somewhat distress sale. Since there was a group concern M/s. MD Properties Ltd., which could profitably put the property to use, it was decided to sell the property to the said concern. The - - 13 sale

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, 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

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 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 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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

15 in O.P No.559 of 2006) in O.P No.775 of 2006 74. This property is extending 2.200 cents in Kaduppassery village in the joint name of Sri.Joy and Smt.Mini. The total consideration shown is Rs.5,500/-. It was purchased for laying pipelines and also as a pathway to the house in 'A' schedule and to the properties of Sri.Joy

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

15. As per Section 4(11, if the Custodian is satished after an inquiry that any contract or agreement entered into at any time after O1.04.1991 and on or before 06.06.7992 in relation to arry property of the person notihed under sub- section (2) of Section 3 has been entered into fraudulently or to defeat the provisions of the Special

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

15. As per Section 4(11, if the Custodian is satished after an inquiry that any contract or agreement entered into at any time after O1.04.1991 and on or before 06.06.7992 in relation to arry property of the person notihed under sub- section (2) of Section 3 has been entered into fraudulently or to defeat the provisions of the Special

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

15. As per Section 4(11, if the Custodian is satished after an inquiry that any contract or agreement entered into at any time after O1.04.1991 and on or before 06.06.7992 in relation to arry property of the person notihed under sub- section (2) of Section 3 has been entered into fraudulently or to defeat the provisions of the Special

Commissioner of Income Tax - II vs. M/s. Inforaise Technologies Pvt. Ltd.,

15 of the said Act. All the learned counsel, in unison, placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of Kerala High Court in Bhanunni v. Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Admn.) Department1 apart from other judgments as they squarely cover the issue in their favour. After advancing arguments, to assist the Court, Smt. K. Lalitha, learned Standing Counsel appearing

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2) above. Submissions: 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that leave and license agreement dated 25.04.1972 was entered by the appellant assessee with M/s. East India Hotels Limited [now renamed as EIH Limited). The assessee was incorporated with the object in the Memorandum of Association to acquire on license or by purchase, lease, exchange, hire or otherwise lands

M/S.R.S.RANGADAS vs. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are disposed of, with no order as to costs

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

2(47) of the Act, the word „transfer‟ includes any transaction whether by way of becoming a member or acquiring shares in a cooperative society, a company or other association of member or by way of agreement or arrangement or any other manner whatsoever which had the effect of transferring or enabling enjoyment of any immovable property. Movable goods could

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

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