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

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Sri N.Sai Baba Naidu

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

house property” as per Section 22. The assessee is not aggrieved by this part of the decision of the Tribunal

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 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

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

Bench: The Learned

22. It is also relevant to refer to the decision of the coordinate bench of this court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gita Duggal: 2013 SCC OnLine Del 752 where this court has held as under: - “11. There could also be another angle. Section 54/54F uses the expression “a residential house”. The expression used is not “a residential unit

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-III vs. M/S Sri Krishna Drugs Ltd.,

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

house property. The said provision reads as follows: ITAs 166, 168, 243, 778/2006 Page 8 “Section 23. ANNUAL VALUE HOW DETERMINED. (1) For the purposes of section 22

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

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

22. (2007) 295 ITR 561 : (2007) 14 SCC 704 23. (2009) 308 ITR 380 (MP) 24. (2009) 308 ITR 401 (MP) 25. AIR 2004 SC 86 26. (1944) 1 All ER 119 27. 1909 AC 323 28. AIR 1960 SC 1203 29. AIR 1961 SC 343 30. (2006) 285 ITR 237 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

22. (2007) 295 ITR 561 : (2007) 14 SCC 704 23. (2009) 308 ITR 380 (MP) 24. (2009) 308 ITR 401 (MP) 25. AIR 2004 SC 86 26. (1944) 1 All ER 119 27. 1909 AC 323 28. AIR 1960 SC 1203 29. AIR 1961 SC 343 30. (2006) 285 ITR 237 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO

COMM.OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE vs. NAVABHARAT ENTERPRISES HYD

In the result, Income Tax Appeal No

Bench: This Court & Hence Both Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Decided By This Common Judgment. 2. Sri Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Rahul Agarwal, Advocate Have Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Sri Manish Goel, Advocate Has Put In Appearance On Behalf Of Revenue. 3. Revenue'S Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law:- (1)Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Tribunal Was Right In Holding That Authorization For Search

22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 or under sub- section (1) of section 142 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is issued to Verma Transport Co., Lucknow Banda Transport Co.(name of person) to produce or cause to be produced, such books account or other documents as required by such summons or notice- SARVSHRI/SHRI/SHRIMATI M/S. VERMA TRANSPORT

The Commissioner of Inccome Tax-III vs. Speectra Shares AND Scrips Pvt Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 6, the fact that it may indirectly be covered by another head will not make the income taxable under the latter head. Referring to Commercial Properties Ltd. v Commissioner of Income Tax9, it is also held that merely because the owner of the property was a company incorporated with the object of owning property, the incidence of income derived

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

property which is not a subject-matter of the trust and as such in the absence of any legal obligation fastened thereto, no exemption can be allowed under Section 11 of the Act.” These cases reiterate the position that the question to be examined is whether the business itself is held under trust or is merely carried

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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

22 years back, is no ground to deny the statutory benefits conferred on the declarant – appellant under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. As much as we are of the view that no possession is taken in accordance with law by issuing notice under section

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Nara Constructions,

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

property and to contract and by that name, sue and be sued. The object with which the National Housing Bank (herein after referred to as NHB/ Bank for short] was established is to provide long term finance for construction and/or purchase of residential housing or residential township-cum-housing development or slum clearance projects. The entire capital

M/s. Sathavahana Ispat Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

22 and 23 and the Revenue had also not filed any cross-objections on this particular issue as to whether the arrears of rent relating to past years received in a later year of account could be part of actual rent for such later previous year in terms of Explanation I below Section 23 of the Act, which defines annual

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. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

HOUSING PVT.LTD ...... Respondent Through: Mr. M.S. Syali, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arta Trana Panda and Ms. Gargi Sethee, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 5 of 36 J U D G M E N T Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.: 1. These are 11 appeals under Section 260-A of the Income