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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section- 94(3) of the JVAT Act, to contend inter-alia that since the rules are required to be placed before the State Legislature, the same by itself necessarily implies that the Rule making power conferred upon the State Government enabled the State Government to frame rules with retrospective effect. 43. In our opinion, the said contention raised

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

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

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 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

4(3)(i) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, which corresponds to Section 11(1) of the 1961 Act, confers an exemption from tax only ITA 309/2003,417/2003,18/2004,722/2007,770/2011,1050/2011 and 1051/2011 Page 16 of 20 where the property itself is held under a trust or other legal obligation; it does not apply to cases where

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

4 of the Specinl Cou rt Ar-.t should lrc orotected. 18.2. Further 'lribunaLl nored that insofar the assessee is concerned, the transactions were entered into prior to introduction of the Spccral Court Act. Assessee had purchased the bonds prior to the notifred date and had taken delivery thereof. It, thus, became property of the assessee ald could

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

4 of the Specinl Cou rt Ar-.t should lrc orotected. 18.2. Further 'lribunaLl nored that insofar the assessee is concerned, the transactions were entered into prior to introduction of the Spccral Court Act. Assessee had purchased the bonds prior to the notifred date and had taken delivery thereof. It, thus, became property of the assessee ald could

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

4 of the Specinl Cou rt Ar-.t should lrc orotected. 18.2. Further 'lribunaLl nored that insofar the assessee is concerned, the transactions were entered into prior to introduction of the Spccral Court Act. Assessee had purchased the bonds prior to the notifred date and had taken delivery thereof. It, thus, became property of the assessee ald could

The Commissioner of Income Tax - I vs. M/s. BBL Foods (Earlier Amber Biscuits P Ltd.)

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

4. The Family Court tried those three cases together treating O.P No.366 of 2006, the O.P for divorce filed by the wife, as the leading case. PWs 1 to 7 were examined and Exts.A1 to A72 were marked from the side of the wife. RWs 1 Mat.Appeal No.242 of 2012 & conn. cases 8 to 69 were examined and Exts.B1

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-IV, vs. M/s. Mahaveer Enterprises (India) Limited

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

4 are built up properties the same are to be taken into consideration while computing the extent of vacant land held by the applicant. The Competent Authority found that the total holding of the applicant was 1685 sq. mts. and held that the applicant was entitled to retain 1000 sq. mts. of land and declared 685 sq. mts. of land

Commissioner of Income Tax- IT and TP vs. M/s. Louis Berger International Inc.,

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

4 to 9 of the 2007 Rules. 16.6. The proper officer can raise doubts as to the truth or accuracy Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:27.11.2024 18:20:25 Signature Not Verified CUSAA 26/2022 & connected matters Page 50 of 137 of the declared value on ―certain reasons‖ which could include the grounds specified in sub-clauses

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s. Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

4 to 9 of the 2007 Rules. 16.6. The proper officer can raise doubts as to the truth or accuracy Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:27.11.2024 18:20:25 Signature Not Verified CUSAA 26/2022 & connected matters Page 50 of 137 of the declared value on ―certain reasons‖ which could include the grounds specified in sub-clauses

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

4 of 11 ground that in respect of this receipt notice under Section 148 for the relevant years had already been issued. Coming back to the re-assessment qua assessment year 1996-97 to 1999-2000, the assessee challenged the order of the Assessing Officer by filing appeal which was allowed by CIT(A) and the re-assessment

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(Central) vs. M/s.Madhu Enterprises

Bench: The Learned

4. As regards claim for exemption against acquisition of two houses under Section 54 of the Act, the same is not admissible in plain language of statute. In the judgment of Karnataka High Court in CIT v. D. Ananda Basappa [2009] 309 ITR 329 (Kar), referred to in the impugned order, exemption against purchase of two flats was allowed having

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. L. SURYAKANTHAM, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

4, the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court while 45 / 54 dealing with the nature and permissible extent of delegative powers under Article 245 of the Constitution observed thus - “4. It is now well-established by the decisions of this court that the power of delegation is a constituent element of the legislative power as a whole

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S G.R.K.PRASAD AND OTHERS

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

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

property or whatever may be the object of the tax in a particular case and determining its amount”. Section 35 of the 1922 Act conferred power on the Commissioner or the Appellate Commissioner to suo motu rectify any mistake apparent on the record, appeal, revision, assessment or refund within four years from the date of such order