Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

b) and (c). In all the three sub-sections the words used are “income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable purposes”. Under Section 11(4) the expression “property held under trust” includes a business undertaking so held. In other words, income from business undertaking held for charitable purposes can fall under Section 11 subject to such income

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

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

b) and (c). In all the three sub-sections the words used are “income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable purposes”. Under Section 11(4) the expression “property held under trust” includes a business undertaking so held. In other words, income from business undertaking held for charitable purposes can fall under Section 11 subject to such income

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 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

b) to mean L 2 \t\t.'i{ the Custodial appointed under sub-section (1) of Section 3. 'Special Court' has been defined in Section 2(d) to mean the Special Court established under sub-section (1) of Section 5. 14. Section 3 of the Special Court Act is the essence of the Act and reads as follows: 3. Appointment

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

b) to mean L 2 \t\t.'i{ the Custodial appointed under sub-section (1) of Section 3. 'Special Court' has been defined in Section 2(d) to mean the Special Court established under sub-section (1) of Section 5. 14. Section 3 of the Special Court Act is the essence of the Act and reads as follows: 3. Appointment

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

b) to mean L 2 \t\t.'i{ the Custodial appointed under sub-section (1) of Section 3. 'Special Court' has been defined in Section 2(d) to mean the Special Court established under sub-section (1) of Section 5. 14. Section 3 of the Special Court Act is the essence of the Act and reads as follows: 3. Appointment

THEE COMMSSR.OF INCOME TAX.HYD. vs. CHALLA SHANKER REDDY.HYD.

Bench: L.NARASIMHA REDDY,T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

properties The Trial Court however declined the plaintiffs' prayer for mesne profits. lr 125. We are inclined to sustain the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.115 of 2006 to the extent of the conclusions arrived I at by the Trial Court save and except the issue o{ mesne profits. We are lr inclined to hold that

COMMR.OF I.T. RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/S.NARAYANA CHOWDARYAND ORS KAKINADA

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

properties The Trial Court however declined the plaintiffs' prayer for mesne profits. lr 125. We are inclined to sustain the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.115 of 2006 to the extent of the conclusions arrived I at by the Trial Court save and except the issue o{ mesne profits. We are lr inclined to hold that

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - (TDS), vs. M/s. Suman Chit Funds (P) Ltd.,

properties The Trial Court however declined the plaintiffs' prayer for mesne profits. lr 125. We are inclined to sustain the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.115 of 2006 to the extent of the conclusions arrived I at by the Trial Court save and except the issue o{ mesne profits. We are lr inclined to hold that

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

b) and (c) exists. The authority concerned has to record reasons before authorization is issued to the officers mentioned in Sub Section (1). Authorization cannot be in favour of any officer below the rank of Income Tax Officer. The authorization is for specific purposes given in Clauses (i) to (v) in sub Section (1). An argument was raised that Section

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

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

B Schedule comprises of suit item No.9 agricultural land of 1 acre in T.S No.3467 bequeathed to his daughters defendants 3 and 4. C Schedule comprises of suit items nos.6 to 8 bequeathed exclusively to the second defendant. Since both Wills came into force, they have to work out their remedy only in terms of the disposition in the Wills

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

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.

b) of Section 10 provided such contract does not fall in any of the prohibited categorires under Section 14. On plain reading of provisions of Chapter II, it can be said that they do not support an argument that only an agreement for sale of immovable property is enforceable and an agreement for development is not specifically enforceable

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

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

B) development of infrastructure facility in India; or (C) development of housing in India; (ii) in respect of the specified entity referred to in sub-clause (v) of clause (a), the business of providing long-term finance for the construction or purchase of houses in India for residential purposes; and (iii) in respect of the specified entity referred

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

3) is inserted. In addition to that, Section 80- IA and in particular sub-sections (1) to (4) and clause (iii) are inserted. In addition to that, we have to keep in mind the Industrial Policy and the object behind giving - - 44 incentives and the objects sought to be achieved by extending such benefits have to be kept in mind