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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 14 deals with Heads of Income which reads as under: Heads of income. 14. Save as otherwise provided by this Act, all income shall, for the purposes of charge of income-tax and computation of total income, be classified under the following heads of income :— A.—Salaries. B.— [***] C.—Income from house property. - - 20

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 24 (a) computed the income from house property at Rs. 9,73,182/-. 14. As per objects in the Memorandum of Association and also as per assessment order, the assessee is engaged in business of licensing the space in question. In this regard the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order is reproduced below:- “During

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 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

The Commissioner of Income Tax(Central) vs. M/s.Madhu Enterprises

Bench: The Learned

20. In Commissioner of Income-tax and Anr. v. D. Ananda Basappa: (2009) 309 ITR 329, the Karnataka High Court considered the admissibility of exemption under Section 54 of the Act in a case where the Assessee had sold a residential house and purchased two adjacent apartments. The Court held that “the expression ‘a’ residential house should be understood

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

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.

house was unreasonable as compared to the market rent. On the same day, the respondent No.1 addressed the second letter dated 17.05.1986 enclosing therewith the list of properties from the property broker. The petitioner vide its letter dated 21.05.1986 replied to the above letter seeking confirmation from the respondents to the effect that they have seen those properties and found

Commissioner of Income Taxd vs. M/sA.,Venjkatarao AND Others

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

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

houses are not really the objects, but were clauses stipulating the powers of the trustees. Having thus made a distinction between the objects and powers, the CIT (Appeals) proceeded to examine Section 11(4A) vis-à- vis Section 11(4) of the Act. He held that the amended provisions of Section 11(4A) would apply from the assessment year

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

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

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-V vs. M/s.Sri Somnath Wood Industries

In the result, revision application succeeds

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act (20 of 1954), S.26(c) – Power of High Court in revision under section – It is narrower than in appeal and is similar to one under Section 115, Civil P.C. - High Court commits error in reappreciating evidence.” (iii) Vasant Mahadeo Gujar Vs. Baitulla Ismail Shaikh, CRA No.770 of 2013 dt. 04th August, 2015 (Bom.H.C

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s. Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Ltd.,

house in India for himself and his family so as to own, possess and enjoy the same in his old age and visit his mother country India as and when he desires. The RC.REV. 392/2013 & 394/2013 Page 12 of 46 petitioner led the evidence that he has been paying exorbitant prices/charges for the hotel for his stay

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

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

20) of Section 19, we set aside and strike down Amendment Act 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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

20) of Section 19, we set aside and strike down Amendment Act 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

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

20,06 JUDGMENTT (per the Hon'bLe the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe) Mr. S.Ravi, learned Senior Counsel re presenting M/ s. R. S.Associate s for the appellant. Mr. J.V.Prasad, learned Senior Standing Counsel lor Income Tax Department fbr the respondent. 2. This Appea-l under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Chirla Rama Reddy, Contract

Appeal is dismissed with costs

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice N.K.Sudhindrarao R.S.A.No.70/2007

house of 3rd defendant. Thus, the direct execution of the sale deed Ex.P1 is spoken by PW1 and PW6 but the legal formality of registration was not effected. 82. The features of valid contract as mentioned in Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 are offer and acceptance, legal relationship, contractual capacity, competency of the parties to enter into