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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

property rights only but is derived from carrying on an adventure or concern in the nature of trade.” The provisions of sections 9 and 10 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, correspond to sections 22 and 28 of the 1961 Act, the latter - - 42 being in almost identical terms with the earlier enactment.” From the above judgments

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

V. 'A' schedule property (item No.8 in O.P No.559 of 2006) in O.P No.775 of 2006 58. 'A' schedule property is 14 cents of land in Kadupassery village. That property stands in the name of Smt.Mini as per Ext.B20 sale deed. According to Sri.Joy, it is his residential property and it is situated just opposite to his tharavad house. According

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

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

47 and 48 thereof. According to him, the Executive Officer, under Section 29(3)(c) has to function under the trustees or Trust Board. Though appointed by the government, the Executive Officer is under the control of the Trust Board, and that they are not under the control of the Commissioner. He places reliance on Sections

SMT. SHANTHA VIDYASAGAR ANNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2) HYDERABAD

In the result, the orders dated 09

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

house propery. 5. The assessing offrcer by arr order d,ated 21.O2.2OO2 inter atia held that the clevelopment agreement dated 04.05.1,196 is a transfer within the meaning of Section 2$7) of the Act. The assessing officer firrther held that the assessee is not eetitled to benefit of Section 54F of the Act. The assessing officer, therefore, determined

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s.Value Labs

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

2(s) of the D.V. Act and, hence, needs no further elaboration. 56.3. Pooling of resources and financial arrangements.- -23- Supporting each other, or any one of them, financially, sharing bank accounts, acquiring immovable properties in joint names or in the name of the woman, long-term investments in business, shares in separate and joint names, so as to have

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed

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

properties or combinations, whether by hand labor or machine. (Tara Agencies[5]). The word 'manufacture' has been defined in Halsbury's Laws of England, (3rd Ed. Vol. 29 p.23) as a manner of adapting natural material by the hands of man or by man-made devices or machinery, and as the making of an article or material by physical labour

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

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. L. SURYAKANTHAM, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

v. Justice S. R. Tendolkar AIR 1958 SC 538). 113. The petitioners have also challenged the notifications on the ground that it violates article 301 as well as articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. However, in the entire petitions, the petitioners have neither alleged nor given any figures to demonstrate and establish that they suffered loss in the business

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. Canara Securities Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO,T.AMARNATH GOUD

47 of 300 JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, CJ. and Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) 1. All these intra court appeals are directed against the order dated 18.09.2020 in G.A No. 43 of 2016 etc. APO Nos. 89, 90, 91 and 95 of 2020 which have been filed by four companies namely Universal Cables Limited (UCL), Birla Cables

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

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

v. Madan Rai [Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai, (2003) 12 SCC 395 : 2004 SCC (Cri) Supp 445] referring to the expression ―reasonable doubt‖ in criminal law it was held as under : (SCC p. 405, para 24) ―24. Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other than

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

v. Madan Rai [Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai, (2003) 12 SCC 395 : 2004 SCC (Cri) Supp 445] referring to the expression ―reasonable doubt‖ in criminal law it was held as under : (SCC p. 405, para 24) ―24. Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other than

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I vs. A.V. V. VARAPRASAD

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

house, was made within the period of six months and two years, of the sale of the shares, as prescribed under Sections 54EC and 54F respectively of the Act. The Commissioner has however, disagreed with the stand of the assessee and, accordingly, set aside the order of the AO, with a direction to him to disallow the claim of exemption

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. M/S NMDC LIMITED

In the result, this Appeal Suit is partly allowed by modifying the

Bench: The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court Reserved On : 19.03.2024 Delivered On : 18.06.2024 Coram The Hon'Ble Mrs.Justice L.Victoria Gowri A.S.(Md)No.110 Of 2015 1.S.Govindasamy 2.S.Rajaraman 3.S.Kalaiselvan ... Appellants

section, it is clear that it cannot be said to be acquired at the expense of the patrimony of ancestral estate. Such property is, therefore, self- acquired in the technical sense of the term. As property described in cl (4), it is a question of fact as to whether it constitutes self- acquired property or not. In practice, the expression

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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Housing Society admeasuring 829.25 sq.mtrs. was of the individual ownership of the petitioner Pannaben Niranjan Mehta and was her self-acquired property. Thus the petitioner was the holder of the land in question within the meaning of the said term as envisaged under the provisions of the Act. In the circumstances, as prescribed under Rule 5 of the Rules read