Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

29) was omitted with effect from 01.04.2003 by reason of the amendment. By the same amendment, an Explanation was inserted below Section 10(20) and, thereafter, Section 10(20) reads as under. 10(20) the income of a local authority which is chargeable under the head ‘Income from house property

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax V vs. M/s.Orchem Industries

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 29 of the Bombay Rent Act does not permit it to be done. Shall it then set aside the decisions of the Courts below even though there are no errors of law therein and remand the suit for a fresh trial on new and subsequent events producing in its wake a fresh decree, a fresh appeal and a fresh

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

Bench: The Learned

Section 54F of the Act on the ground that she holds more than one residential unit. 27. We also find that there has been no failure on the part of the Assessee to truly and fairly disclose all the material facts in her return. The Assessee had fairly disclosed about the sale of the original asset, in respect of which

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

29'05'2001' preferred agarnst the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) of lncome-Tax and commissioner of lncome-Tax (Appeals) PAN/GIR No.A-2lCC-lll/Hyderabad, dated 12-03-1999.) Between: Andhra Bank Financial Services Ltd, Hyderabad I Floor, 4-5-1 to 23, Andhra Bank Buildings, Sultan Bazar, Koti, Hyderabad - 195 ..,APPELLANT AND The Commissioner of lncome Tax-1, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

29'05'2001' preferred agarnst the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) of lncome-Tax and commissioner of lncome-Tax (Appeals) PAN/GIR No.A-2lCC-lll/Hyderabad, dated 12-03-1999.) Between: Andhra Bank Financial Services Ltd, Hyderabad I Floor, 4-5-1 to 23, Andhra Bank Buildings, Sultan Bazar, Koti, Hyderabad - 195 ..,APPELLANT AND The Commissioner of lncome Tax-1, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

29'05'2001' preferred agarnst the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) of lncome-Tax and commissioner of lncome-Tax (Appeals) PAN/GIR No.A-2lCC-lll/Hyderabad, dated 12-03-1999.) Between: Andhra Bank Financial Services Ltd, Hyderabad I Floor, 4-5-1 to 23, Andhra Bank Buildings, Sultan Bazar, Koti, Hyderabad - 195 ..,APPELLANT AND The Commissioner of lncome Tax-1, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh

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

house property. The Assessee also claimed deduction of 1/5th of the repairs amounting to Rs. 41,29,837 under Section

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

house property. The Assessee also claimed deduction of 1/5th of the repairs amounting to Rs. 41,29,837 under Section

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.

29. I again do not find any merit in the said submission. Mr.Dilbagh Singh had been appointed as an Additional Director of petitioner‟s company on 27.05.1985. By the Board Resolution dated 13.07.1985 he was authorised to negotiate and finalise terms with the respondents regarding redevelopment of the property in question. In the meeting of the Board of Directors

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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

29 of 76 C/LPA/94/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2021 RAVJIBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL SINCE DECD. THR'HEIRS V/s ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY U.L.C. under Section 6 of the Act, that the land in question situated in Van Shree Cooperative Housing Society admeasuring 829.25 sq.mtrs. was of the individual ownership of the petitioner Pannaben Niranjan Mehta and was her self-acquired property

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 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 IV vs. M/s. Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Ltd.,

Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. If a person is residing abroad, he/she owns a flat or a house in Delhi, he/she wants to spend a few weeks or a few months then he/she must be allowed to stay in his/her own house. I do not find any infirmity with the finding recorded by learned Additional Rent Controller

M/s Vodafone Essar South Ltd., vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income tax,

Section 19 of P.C.Act is restricted to the office under P.C.Act and the commission of offence under any other enactment during the course of official duty needs to be dealt with u/s 197 and separate sanction is necessary for a valid joint trial before the Court.   The decisions are : (vii) Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli Vs. The State of Bombay8

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 III HYDERABAD vs. M/s. Vasant Organics Private Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

house property. Even after the death of the deceased, this income towards rent, is continued and therefore, this amount shall be deducted from the gross annual income of the deceased while assessing the compensation amount. 10 fa963.05 Shantaram Vs Janabai & Ors 8. Next submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that the wife of the deceased continued

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

Appeal is partly allowed

29. The reason assigned is that plaintiffs did not challenge validity of gift deed and admitted its due execution. Therefore compliance with Section 68 of Evidence Act was not necessitated. The trial court answered issue no.6 partly in affirmative and partly in negative. 30. Insofar as issue no.3, trial Court held that by virtue of gift deed, defendants no.2