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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Section 23 of the Act, which defines annual rent. However, the Court was of the opinion that this particular issue was an inherent aspect of the question falling for ITA Nos.260/2007 etc. Page 6 of 11 determination and therefore, addressed the same as well. It is for this reason that this judgment of the Calcutta High Court becomes relevant

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

Bench: The Learned

23. This court in Mrs. Kamla Ajmera v. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax: Neutral Citation No.: 2024:DHC:9342-DB, referred to the decision in CIT v. Geeta Duggal, (supra), and held that in certain circumstances, multiple residential units may be considered as a single residential house for the purposes of exemption under Section 54F of the Act. The court

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

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

23(1) and the Government is only paid interest thereon under Section 28(1) just as interest would be paid on any money due as a debt. That the activity of the respondent Corporation is not carried on with the object of making profit is made abundantly clear by the provisions of Section 30 under which, prior to the amendment

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

23(1) and the Government is only paid interest thereon under Section 28(1) just as interest would be paid on any money due as a debt. That the activity of the respondent Corporation is not carried on with the object of making profit is made abundantly clear by the provisions of Section 30 under which, prior to the amendment

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/S Sri Krishna Drugs Ltd.,

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 23 of the Act explains “annual letting value,” for purposes, of income from house property. The said provision reads

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

23' Andhra Bank Buildings, Sultan Bazar, Koti, Hyderabad - 195 ...APPELLANT AND The Commissioner of lncome Tax-|, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 5OOOO1 ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. C. P. RAMASWAMI Counsel ior the Respondent: SRI B.NARASIMHA SARMA, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL FOR INCOME TAX The Court delivered the following Common Judgment: ',fti ), r. THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAI BHUYAN

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

23' Andhra Bank Buildings, Sultan Bazar, Koti, Hyderabad - 195 ...APPELLANT AND The Commissioner of lncome Tax-|, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 5OOOO1 ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. C. P. RAMASWAMI Counsel ior the Respondent: SRI B.NARASIMHA SARMA, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL FOR INCOME TAX The Court delivered the following Common Judgment: ',fti ), r. THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAI BHUYAN

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

23' Andhra Bank Buildings, Sultan Bazar, Koti, Hyderabad - 195 ...APPELLANT AND The Commissioner of lncome Tax-|, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 5OOOO1 ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. C. P. RAMASWAMI Counsel ior the Respondent: SRI B.NARASIMHA SARMA, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL FOR INCOME TAX The Court delivered the following Common Judgment: ',fti ), r. THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAI BHUYAN

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

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

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

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 23 of the Companies Act, 1956. 12. Incorporation of an organisation by registration was presented in 1844 and the precept of limited liability of an organisation followed in 1855. In this manner in 1897 in Salomon Vs. Salomon & Company (1897 A.C.22), the House of Lords influenced these establishments and solidified into English law the twin ideas of limited liability

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

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 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

Commissioner of Income tax-VI vs. M/s. Narpat Girji Constructions,

The appeal is allowed

Section 531A of the Companies Act provides for avoidance of the voluntary transfer made by the Company within a period of 1 year before presentation of the petition for winding up. 23. The learned Company Judge held that for meagre amount of Rs.2,84,000/- would be paid over a period of 28 years for the land of 6 acres

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

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

Commissioner of Income Tax-V, vs. M/s.Sirveen Control Systems

Appeal is partly allowed

23 Section 3 of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, she would not become its owner. Trial court taking note of unequivocal consent by plaintiffs for mutation of name of defendant no.1 over ‘A’ schedule property after death of Smt. Rathnamma and admitting that old building was demolished and a new building constructed with five floors wherein defendant no.1 was residing