The Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. G Pulla Reddy Chritable Trust

In the result, the orders passed by the Commissioner of

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

house property for a sum of Rs.2,03,986/- and capital gains at Rs.19,06,984/- and declared income from other sources at Rs.1,55,438/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 30.08.2010. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 15.12.2011 after making enquiries

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I vs. A.V. V. VARAPRASAD

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

house, was made within the period of six months and two years, of the sale of the shares, as prescribed under Sections 54EC and 54F respectively of the Act. The Commissioner has however, disagreed with the stand of the assessee and, accordingly, set aside the order of the AO, with a direction to him to disallow the claim of exemption

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. Bheema Wines

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

house No. 7, Masjid Moth, New Delhi and Rs.8310/- from insurance policies and accused R.C. Sabharwal and his wife earned Rs. 1,98,972/- towards interest. It is also alleged that accused earned rental income of Rs.62,890/- from BPC Pump at Garh Muktheshwar. Thus total Digitally signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:16.12.2020 13:19:29 Signature Not Verified

M/SVISWARUPA BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS P LTD/. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD/3(I) HYDERABAD

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

Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), the assessee has filed returns disclosing “nil” income, claiming the rental income and maintenance charges as “income from business source”. The assessee has claimed the expenditure and depreciation on building, and maintenance. The Assessing Officer (AO), on consideration of the accounts and the legal position, treated the rental

M/s. Canara Securities Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO,T.AMARNATH GOUD

1 and 2 companies and certain other individuals as Directors of 4 listed companies, 3 subsidiaries of one listed company and an unlisted company is bad in law since the Joint APLs merely represents the estate of PDB and thus, had no rights to seek appointment of Directors in companies in which PDB was not a "Member". Further, without prejudice

V.C. NANNAPANENI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

In the result, the appeals are allowed

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

263 and the assessee in turn has to pay D.B. Akki & Co., out of the said compensation amount the sum of O.S. Rs.6,920 also by way of compensation. The sum of Rs.2,19,343 received by the assessee was included in its total income and taxed it as a revenue receipt by the Income Tax Officer. On the appeal

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Shri Raaj Kumar Jain

Section 27 begins with a proviso and states that when any fact is deposed to as discovered, in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved, 49 whether it amounts to a confession