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

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

22. (2007) 295 ITR 561 : (2007) 14 SCC 704 23. (2009) 308 ITR 380 (MP) 24. (2009) 308 ITR 401 (MP) 25. AIR 2004 SC 86 26. (1944) 1 All ER 119 27. 1909 AC 323 28. AIR 1960 SC 1203 29. AIR 1961 SC 343 30. (2006) 285 ITR 237 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

22. (2007) 295 ITR 561 : (2007) 14 SCC 704 23. (2009) 308 ITR 380 (MP) 24. (2009) 308 ITR 401 (MP) 25. AIR 2004 SC 86 26. (1944) 1 All ER 119 27. 1909 AC 323 28. AIR 1960 SC 1203 29. AIR 1961 SC 343 30. (2006) 285 ITR 237 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO

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 LTD,. HYDERABAD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, HYDERABAD

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Housing and Land Devclopment Trust Ltd. (supra), therefore, is of no help to the assessee. This decision was rendered in different context. There a cornpensation was awarded by tl.re Land Acquisition Ofhcer. Arbitrator made award fixing a higher compensation and directed the payment of intcrest from the date of acquisition Thereupon the Statc GovernmenL preferred an appeal before the High

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Housing and Land Devclopment Trust Ltd. (supra), therefore, is of no help to the assessee. This decision was rendered in different context. There a cornpensation was awarded by tl.re Land Acquisition Ofhcer. Arbitrator made award fixing a higher compensation and directed the payment of intcrest from the date of acquisition Thereupon the Statc GovernmenL preferred an appeal before the High

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Housing and Land Devclopment Trust Ltd. (supra), therefore, is of no help to the assessee. This decision was rendered in different context. There a cornpensation was awarded by tl.re Land Acquisition Ofhcer. Arbitrator made award fixing a higher compensation and directed the payment of intcrest from the date of acquisition Thereupon the Statc GovernmenL preferred an appeal before the High

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

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

property in Golf Links, the assessee was not entitled to exemption under Section 54F of the Act. 16. Lastly, the tribunal considered the question of sale consideration. Shares of NIIT were quoted in the stock exchange and therefore the market rate on 5th May, 1998 should be adopted to work out the sale consideration. Decision in the case

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

22 of 2005 was enacted to provide information to the citizens, to curtail corruption and to hold governments and their instrumentalities accountable, the subject temple is not an instrumentality of the State and the Executive Officer is not a ‘public authority’, as defined under Section 2(h) of the 2005 Act. The 2nd respondent had filed the counter-affidavit stating

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

22 of the Act or the said income being composite income arising from part exploitation of shops and establishment which are sub-leased as commercial assets and the services which are rendered to the shopkeepers can be treated as income arising from business falling under Section 28 of the Act? II. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

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

SRI B.DHANUNJAYARAO vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

property as collateral security to tlr: bank. It was further observed that the loan or advance given I e return is art advantage upon the company ald is not a gra- ritous loan or advance given by the company and does not c: Tre under the permission of Section 22 (2) of the Act, 1961 ar d accordingly ./ Page

SMT.B.SEETHARATNAM vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

property as collateral security to tlr: bank. It was further observed that the loan or advance given I e return is art advantage upon the company ald is not a gra- ritous loan or advance given by the company and does not c: Tre under the permission of Section 22 (2) of the Act, 1961 ar d accordingly ./ Page

SRI B.DHANUNJAYARAO vs. DY.COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

property as collateral security to tlr: bank. It was further observed that the loan or advance given I e return is art advantage upon the company ald is not a gra- ritous loan or advance given by the company and does not c: Tre under the permission of Section 22 (2) of the Act, 1961 ar d accordingly ./ Page

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

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

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

22 of 2010 whereby this amendment was given retrospective effect from 1.1.2007.” (Emphasis supplied) 33. In view of discussions held aforesaid, we declare that the substituted provisos inserted vide notification dated 08.02.2016 are not clarificatory in nature and, has an effect of curtailing the vested right of the dealers in respect of purchases and sales of goods made between

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

22 of 2010 whereby this amendment was given retrospective effect from 1.1.2007.” (Emphasis supplied) 33. In view of discussions held aforesaid, we declare that the substituted provisos inserted vide notification dated 08.02.2016 are not clarificatory in nature and, has an effect of curtailing the vested right of the dealers in respect of purchases and sales of goods made between

The Pr. Commissioner of Income tax (Central), vs. Sri Vaishnavi Educational Society,

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.51929/2014 C/W W.P.Nos.42063/2012, 30494/2013, 42671/2013, 638/2014, 797/2014, 1089/2014, 3211/2014, 3389/2014, 6180/2014, 10356/2014, 12014/2014, 12015/2014, 13043/2014, 13045/2014, 13206/2014, 13207/2014, 13398/2014, 13774/2014, 14149/2014, 14161/2014, 14494/2014, 14502/2014, 14521/2014, 14689/2014, 16646/2014, 17051/2014, 17594/2014, 19729/2014, 21158/2014, 23897/2014, 28861/2014, 30731/2014, 31723/2014, 33774/2014, 33777/2014, 34084/2014, 34259/2014, 34272/2014, 34391/2014, 35204/2014, 35243/2014, 35247/2014, 35305/2014, 35609/2014, 36164/2014, 36166/2014, 36489/2014, 36525/2014, 36971/2014, 37446/2014, 38055/2014, 38463/2014, 38471/2014, 38472/2014, 38661/2014, 38753/2014, 39383/2014, 39633/2014, 39832/2014, 40204/2014, 40379/2014, 41394/2014, 41422/2014, 41427/2014, 41428/2014, 41858/2014, 43815/2014, 43963/2014, 44306/2014, 44527/2014, 44742/2014, 44835/2014, 45486/2014, 46766/2014, 47103/2014, 47105/2014, 47106/2014, 47107/2014, 47608/2014, 47731/2014, 47821/2014, 47860/2014, 47913/2014, 48577/2014, 48880/2014, 49567/2014, 50260/2014, 50533/2014, 51294/2014, 51930/2014, 51931/2014, 51932/2014, 52760/2014, 53854/2014, 54059/2014, 54083/2014, 54236/2014

SECTION 19(1) OF THE B.D.A. ACT ISSUED IN THE KARNATAKA GAZETTE DATED 18.06.2014 (ANNEX-A) IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY IS CONCERNED BEING PROPERTY NO.206, CARVED OUT IN SY.NO.48/1 OF DASARAHALLI VILLAGE AND ETC. IN W.P. NO. 43963/2014: BETWEEN: 1. SRI KRISHNAPPA 93 S/O.LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 2. SRI S. R. ANJINAPPA