THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

housing project without acquiring 100 acres of contiguous land interest, free advances were given to the associate companies for the purposes of Assessee‟s business. 70. The Assessee‟s case appears to be supported by the decisions in SA Builders v. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) which has been followed in Hero Cycles

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

housing project without acquiring 100 acres of contiguous land interest, free advances were given to the associate companies for the purposes of Assessee‟s business. 70. The Assessee‟s case appears to be supported by the decisions in SA Builders v. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) which has been followed in Hero Cycles

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Shri Raaj Kumar Jain

Sections 364, 376/511, 302, 201 IPC, Police Station – SCB-I New Delhi. The accused SK denied the charges and trial proceeded in the matter. 18. The prosecution version in the case is essentially based upon detailed confession made by accused SK, as well as alleged recovery of body parts etc., on his pointing out, immediately after his arrest on 29th

Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

201 1 : Appeal filed Under Section 96 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 04.02.201 1 passed in O.S.No. 2 of 1999 on the file of the lX Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Between: 1. SARANGA KRISHNA MURTHY (Died per LR's RR3 to 6), S/o. LAte Laxmi Narayana Business R/o. H.No

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agrilcultural Market Committee

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

201 1 : Appeal filed Under Section 96 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 04.02.201 1 passed in O.S.No. 2 of 1999 on the file of the lX Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Between: 1. SARANGA KRISHNA MURTHY (Died per LR's RR3 to 6), S/o. LAte Laxmi Narayana Business R/o. H.No

Mr. K.S.N.Raju vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

house of accused even prior to 02.11.2011 but there was no disclosure or recovery. Even otherwise, according to this witness, the mobiles were without sim cards. To connect the mobiles to the deceased, distinct evidence ought to have been produced i.e. purchase receipt of mobile and customer application form. Unless it is shown that the mobiles belonged to only

THE COMM. OF INCOME TAX RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/S B.KRISHNA MURTHY AND OTHERS

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

201 read with 120-B IPC within my cognizance.” Crl.A.247/2000 & Crl.A.81/2003 Page 12 of 55 23. There were separate additional charges under Section 411 IPC qua some of the co-accused being found in possession of stolen property. A total of 143 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. A-1’s statement under Section

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

The commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s Lanco Kondapalli Power (P) Ltd

House, Nhava Sheva. 5. Commissioner of Customs, Office of the Commissioner of Customs (NS-1), Jawaharlal Nehru Customs House, Nhava Sheva. …Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2091 OF 2022 Balkrishna Industries Ltd, Page 108 of 198 22nd March 2024 Saurer Textile Solutions Pvt Ltd v The State of Maharashtra & Ors & Connected Writ Petitions 1-2-oswp-1494-2023-J+.docx

M/s Sri Surya Constructions vs. The Income Tax Officer

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

Property, (1998) 7 SCC 184] and Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. v. Vessel M.V. Fortune Express [Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. v. Vessel M.V. Fortune Express, (2006) 3 SCC 100].” 22. Furthermore, an important dictum with regard to the material concealment of facts and documents in a suit, has been discussed in S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. vs. State of Bihar and Others

M/s. Canara Securities Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

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

properties as alleged. It is submitted that similar submissions were made by HVL before the Joint APLs which is evidenced by the Minutes of the meeting dated 21st July, 2017, similar stand was taken in his affidavit-in-opposition to the administrator's proceedings filed by the respondents in 2008 which culminated in judgment of the Division Bench dated 23rd

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. TCI finance Limited

201 CRM-M-301-2013 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.09.2019 Tarsem Singh and another ...... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL Present:- Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arvinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Bhupender Beniwal, AAG, Punjab. Mr. P.S. Hundal, Advocate for respondent No.2. ***** ANIL KSHETARPAL

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

HOUSING AND URBAN DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE 560001 BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARAPARK WEST BANGALORE 20 R/P BY ITS COMMISSIONER 117 3. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARAPARK WEST BANGALORE 20 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.V. SHASHIKUMAR, AGA FOR R1) THIS W.P. IS FILED

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

201) 7 SC 714 10 (2017) 9 SC 426 LA.AP. 59/207 & conected Page 92 of 171 to submit that benefit of higher compensation should be granted to even those landowners who could not aproach the court . Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Cordinate bench of this Court in Bedi Ram Vs. Union of India & Anr. 1 to submit that

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Sri Laxmi Narasimha Wines,

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

201) 7 SC 714 10 (2017) 9 SC 426 LA.AP. 59/207 & conected Page 92 of 171 to submit that benefit of higher compensation should be granted to even those landowners who could not aproach the court . Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Cordinate bench of this Court in Bedi Ram Vs. Union of India & Anr. 1 to submit that

V.C. NANNAPANENI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

In the result, the appeals are allowed

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

201 ITR 866 (SC) 7 (1986) 160 ITR 674 (SC) CVNR, J & TA, J ITTAs 159 & 160/2005 12 indirectly the business hitherto in the “Territory” specified in the agreement. The agreement defined the word “Products”, as described in Annexure-I and the word “Territory” as Territory of Russia & CIS countries, including Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Belarus, Moldova, Kazakhastan. Clauses

M/s Durga Granites, vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1,

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

201 to 208, Barharwa, Barhait Road, Chapandey, P.O. & P.S. Chapandey, District Sahebganj, PIN - 816101, (Jharkhand) through its Proprietor namely, Shri Santosh Kumar Dokania, aged about 72 years, son of Late Beni Prasad Dokania, resident of Main Road near Railway Station, Barharwa, P.O. & P.S. Barharwa, District Sahibganj, PIN-816101, (Jharkhand). ..........Petitioner. -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Secretary, Department