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

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

22 and 24) Applying the tests laid down by the apex court in the aforesaid cases to the facts of the present case, there can be no doubt that the object of the market committees (assessees) established under the 1963 Act is to regulate the entire marketing of agricultural and some other produce from the stage of procuring till

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

22 and 24) Applying the tests laid down by the apex court in the aforesaid cases to the facts of the present case, there can be no doubt that the object of the market committees (assessees) established under the 1963 Act is to regulate the entire marketing of agricultural and some other produce from the stage of procuring till

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

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

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

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

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/s Padmapriya Real Estates AND Financiers

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment passed by

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant denied the charge and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove the charge against the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 36 witnesses. The statement of the accused appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has also been recorded in which he denied

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 (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 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 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 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

M/s Vodafone Essar South Ltd., vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income tax,

Housing Society Pvt.Ltd by four cheques of Rs.11.10 lakh.  The amount of Rs.10 lakh received from Mr.Bhat was used in making payment to the builder.   The provisions   of   P.C.Act   and   the   penal   provisions   are   not   attracted against applicant.  It is further submitted that the applicant is income tax payee from A.Y.1988 till 2005.  He has agricultural land income

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Section 18 and explained its significance in the following words: ―22. The significance of Section 18 of the Act can be understood in the light of the above provisions. Section 18 provides for provisional assessment of duty in cases specified in sub-section (1) of the section. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) deals with cases where the importer