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

21 ANALYSIS I. Item No.17 in O.P No.559 of 2006 31. Item No.17 in O.P No.559 of 2006 is in the joint name of Smt.Mini, Sri.Joy and Milan. That property is extending 70 and odd cents in Kadupassery village comprised in survey No.380/1. That property was purchased as per Ext.B18 document. Though that property stands in the joint name

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

Bench: The Learned

property was taken over on 02.09.2014, but not registered as 100% payment is made to the seller only in financial year 2013-14.” 19. It is clear from the above that separate floors of the singular house bearing the address D-6/5 Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, were purchased by the family members of the Assessee. The fact that different

K. Ranjeet Mohan, vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax,

section 21 of the act. Reliance is also placed on M/s A.L.A. Firm vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 1991 U.P.T.C. 918 (Paragraph 19) in which it was stated as under: " To give a couple of illustrations suppose in I.T.O. in the original assessment, which is a valuminous one involving several contentions, accepts a plea of the assessee in regard

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

21 The Custodian may, on being satisfred on information received that any person has been involved in aly offence relating to transactions in securities after the 1"! day of April, 1991 and on and before the 6fr June, 1992, nottfy the name of such person in the Oflicia-l Ga"rtLe. (3) Notwithsta-nding anything contained in the Code

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

21 The Custodian may, on being satisfred on information received that any person has been involved in aly offence relating to transactions in securities after the 1"! day of April, 1991 and on and before the 6fr June, 1992, nottfy the name of such person in the Oflicia-l Ga"rtLe. (3) Notwithsta-nding anything contained in the Code

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

21 The Custodian may, on being satisfred on information received that any person has been involved in aly offence relating to transactions in securities after the 1"! day of April, 1991 and on and before the 6fr June, 1992, nottfy the name of such person in the Oflicia-l Ga"rtLe. (3) Notwithsta-nding anything contained in the Code

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.V.S.T.Industries Ltd

Appeal is allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 would be HUF in his hand vis-a-vis his own sons. If that be the position then the property which developed upon the father of the respondent in the instant case on the demise of his grandfather could not be said to be HUF property. If that is so, then

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

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

house for traders (para 35 of Sreenivasa Traders). Section 12 of the AMC Act read with Rule 74 of the Rules empower the market committee to levy and collect fees on any notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock purchased or sold in the market at the rate as specified in the bye-laws of the AMC made

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

house for traders (para 35 of Sreenivasa Traders). Section 12 of the AMC Act read with Rule 74 of the Rules empower the market committee to levy and collect fees on any notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock purchased or sold in the market at the rate as specified in the bye-laws of the AMC made

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

Bench: Adverting To The Facts Of The Case It Is Beneficial To Mention Here That No Affidavit Had Been Filed On Behalf Of The State (Present Appellant In Both The Appeals) In Either Of The Two Writ Petitions. Learned Counsel Appearing For The State Before The Hon’Ble Single Judge Had Agreed For Disposal Of The Two Writ Petitions Without Affidavits Being Filed On The Ground That Arguments Have To Be Advanced On Question Of Law Only. 3. A Compendium Of Facts Relevant For Disposal Of These Appeals Is As Follows:

Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act by “change of name” of the company which is a juristic person in itself. In such a case the well-established protection of “veil of incorporation” as enunciated by House of Lords in the case of Salomon Vs. Salomon & Company and followed in India by Hon’ble The Supreme Court and other

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 and other organisations, etc. He was inclined to view these clauses only as powers enabling the trustees to commence and carry on business to augment the resources available to the trust. It was for these reasons that the CIT (Appeals) held that the Katha business was not held under trust. Unfortunately the Tribunal, which appears to have disposed

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 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

21 of 36 Is rental income business income or income from house property? 41. The next issue that arises is whether rental income earned by the Assessee from its stock and trade should be treated as income from house property (IHP), as claimed by the Assessee, or as business income? 42. The question arose even in AY 1995-96 where

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

21 of 36 Is rental income business income or income from house property? 41. The next issue that arises is whether rental income earned by the Assessee from its stock and trade should be treated as income from house property (IHP), as claimed by the Assessee, or as business income? 42. The question arose even in AY 1995-96 where

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

The Commissioner of Income -Tax - III, vs. Shri Taher Ali

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

House Rates Control Act, 1947 3 / 79 CRA-322-08gr (for short, 'Act'). The leaned trial Judge also accepted grounds under section 13(1)(e) (unlawful subletting by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2) and 13(1)(k) (non user of the suit premises by defendant no.1-tenant). The Appellate Court decreed the suit only under section

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

Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, as under: “Sale” defined.—‘‘Sale” is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part- paid and part-promised. Sale how made.—Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion