Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

1) of the IT Act Before the amendments, introduced by the Finance Act, 2002, with effect from 01.04.2003, Sections 10(20) and (29) read as under. 10(20) the income of a local authority which is chargeable under the head ‘Income from house property”, “Capital gains”, or “income from other sources” or from a trade or business carried

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

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

3 1-3- 1993 in its balance sheet. As an alternative the assessee prayed that in case the Court came to the conclusion that the appellalt was not entitled to the declaration of ownership of the aforesaid securities and tronds, M/s FGFSL might be directed to pay the entire sum of Rs.236.78 crores along with interest thereon at the contract

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

3 1-3- 1993 in its balance sheet. As an alternative the assessee prayed that in case the Court came to the conclusion that the appellalt was not entitled to the declaration of ownership of the aforesaid securities and tronds, M/s FGFSL might be directed to pay the entire sum of Rs.236.78 crores along with interest thereon at the contract

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

3 1-3- 1993 in its balance sheet. As an alternative the assessee prayed that in case the Court came to the conclusion that the appellalt was not entitled to the declaration of ownership of the aforesaid securities and tronds, M/s FGFSL might be directed to pay the entire sum of Rs.236.78 crores along with interest thereon at the contract

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

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed

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

properties or combinations, whether by hand labor or machine. (Tara Agencies[5]). The word 'manufacture' has been defined in Halsbury's Laws of England, (3rd Ed. Vol. 29 p.23) as a manner of adapting natural material by the hands of man or by man-made devices or machinery, and as the making of an article or material by physical labour

COMM.OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE vs. NAVABHARAT ENTERPRISES HYD

In the result, Income Tax Appeal No

Bench: This Court & Hence Both Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Decided By This Common Judgment. 2. Sri Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Rahul Agarwal, Advocate Have Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Sri Manish Goel, Advocate Has Put In Appearance On Behalf Of Revenue. 3. Revenue'S Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law:- (1)Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Tribunal Was Right In Holding That Authorization For Search

Section 132(1) of the Act. In para 3, Division Bench has noticed that search was authorized because of information allegedly gathered about receipt of approximately Rs.30 crores by assessee from land acquisition department. Discreet enquiries were made and it was revealed to the department that house property

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. M/S NMDC LIMITED

In the result, this Appeal Suit is partly allowed by modifying the

Bench: The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court Reserved On : 19.03.2024 Delivered On : 18.06.2024 Coram The Hon'Ble Mrs.Justice L.Victoria Gowri A.S.(Md)No.110 Of 2015 1.S.Govindasamy 2.S.Rajaraman 3.S.Kalaiselvan ... Appellants

3) and (5) of this section, it is clear that it cannot be said to be acquired at the expense of the patrimony of ancestral estate. Such property is, therefore, self- acquired in the technical sense of the term. As property described in cl (4), it is a question of fact as to whether it constitutes self- acquired property

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Nara Constructions,

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

1. The assessee was established as a Bank by the National Housing Bank Act, 1987. Section 3 of the Act provides that the Bank is a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal with power, subject to the provisions of the Act, to acquire, hold and dispose of property

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s Pokarna Limited

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

3. The assessee Company filed its return of income for assessment year 2005-06 on 31.10.2005 declaring a total income of Rs. NIL and paid taxes under Section 115JB of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (for short, hereinafter referred to as `the Act’). The same was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act on 28.08.2006. The case was selected

The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) vs. Madhu Enterprises

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

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

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. Mahaveer Enterprises (India) Limited

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1 City Rajpur- Hirpur T.P. Scheme No.4, Final Plot No.73 739.12 sq. mts. On lease for 99 years 2 Thaltej 46 829.28 sq. mts. As member of society 3 Khadia 2695 18.50 sq. mts. Residential house. By succession 4 Khadia 2682 99 sq. mts. Residential house. By succession 5 Paldi Samasth Brahmashatriy a Society Sub-plot No.88 Bunglow No.89

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

section 548 can be collected and used by the Corporation only for discharging its functions under the Act The Corporation. subject to certain controls is an autonomous body. It is often given power to decide when and in what manner the functions are to be performed. For 46 / 54 all this it needs money and it needs will vary from

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

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.

Section 20 of the Act seeking appointment of an Arbitrator and reference of disputes, being Suit CS(OS) No.486/2011 Page 3 No.1638-A of 1986. This Court by its order dated 08.04.1991 appointed a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the claims of the petitioner. 8. The abovesaid order was challenged by the respondent no.1 and the respondent nos.2 and 3

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