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

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

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

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

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

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 AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN I.T.T.A.Nos

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

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 AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN I.T.T.A.Nos

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

house of 3rd defendant. Thus, the direct execution of the sale deed Ex.P1 is spoken by PW1 and PW6 but the legal formality of registration was not effected. 82. The features of valid contract as mentioned in Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 are offer and acceptance, legal relationship, contractual capacity, competency of the parties to enter into

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

house or a newspaper. 23. It was contended on behalf of the assessee that the mere letting out of the factory on lease w. e. f. 01.01.1992 does not amount to carrying on of any business. We are unable to accept this contention. Initially the assessee carried on the business itself. The production unit

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

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as held by the Supreme Court in Shrimant Shamrao Suryavanshi vs' Prahlad a:.1 11 Bhairoba Suryavanshir2, the following conditions are required to be fulfilled: "(1) there must be a contract to transfer for consideration of any immovabie propert5r; (21 tt.e contract must be in writing, signed by the transferor

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 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

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.,

Section 14(1)(e) of RC.REV. 392/2013 & 394/2013 Page 8 of 46 the DRC Act. The averments in the written statement were denied and it was stated that if the petitioner/landlord has a proper residence at New Delhi his family which comprises of his wife and three married children and grand- children would also be happy to visit their motherland

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

The appeal is allowed

housing quarters for Rs.65,00,00,000/- Crores (Rupees sixty five crores only). The transaction entered into between the company in liquidation and the applicant-Society was not in ordinary course of business, the encumbrance is not on - 17 - OSA No. 19 of 2015 good faith. Before initiating winding up proceedings, the statutory notice would have been issued

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI PINNAMANENI PARANDHAMAIAH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

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

house property and partly as income from other sources ignoring the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Velankani Information Systems and the Circular issued by the Department? (3) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the authorities below erred in disallowing the expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes

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.

26 53. Before proceeding further I would also like to note that the petitioner itself before the Arbitrator sought further directions incase specific performance was ordered by the Arbitrator. These, inter alia, included the direction to the respondents to approve one of the concept plans prepared by the architect and allocation of the specific sum as rent for houses

M/S.R.S.RANGADAS vs. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are disposed of, with no order as to costs

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

26 of capital gains as Rs.14.93 Crores. Deduction under Section 54F in respect of purchase of House No.5, Golf Links, New Delhi for Rs.10.75 Crores was allowed and the balance amount of Rs.4,18,00,000/- was treated as long term capital gains. In other words, the Assessing Officer assumed the transfer price of each share of NIIT as Rs.1