THE COMM. OF INCOME TAX RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/S B.KRISHNA MURTHY AND OTHERS

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

property. A total of 143 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. A-1’s statement under Section 313 Cr PC 24. As far as the statement of A-1 under Section 313 Cr PC is concerned, it is relevant to note that A-1, apart from denying many of the circumstances put to him by the prosecution, gave

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

properties to CBI Authorities. 16 46 RC Garwaan IO. Proved the FIR registered by the CBI on 11.01.2007 and chargesheet. Proved the seizure panchnama dt. 14.04.2007 and 16.04.2007 of biological material clothes etc. from the drain on the main road facing the row of houses D2-D6 prepared by his colleague Stephen Durairaj. Proved forwarding letter to Forensic Deptt., AIIMS

Vidyananda Educational Society vs. The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Exemptions)II

Bench: The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court Dated : 12.08.2022 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice P.Velmurugan A.S. (Md) No.152 Of 2013 & Cross. Obj(Md)No.23 Of 2022 A.S(Md)No.152 Of 2013 The Special Tahsildar (La) Adi-Dravidar Welfare Periyakulam, Theni District. ... Appellant/Referring Officer Vs. Thiru.Manikandan (Died) 2.Mrs.Sornam 3.Mrs.Kaleeswari 4.Sivakumar 5.M.Kohiladevi ... Respondents/ Claimants Nos.2 To 5 Prayer: Appeal Suit Filed Under Section 54 Of The Land Acquisition Act, To Set Aside The Judgment & Decree, Dated 20.12.2006 Made In L.A.O.P.No. 11 Of 1996, On The File Of The Land Acquisition Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court-Cum-Fast Track No.4, Periyakulam. _________ Page 1 Of 15 Https://Www.Mhc.Tn.Gov.In/Judis

section 4(1), dated 29.09.1994 and based on the permission granted by the Government, dated 20.12.1994, the District Collector has fixed an award at Rs.99,173/- for 3 acre 13 cents. Since the land owner did not agree to the amount determined by the District Collector, Madurai, the Special Tahsildar (LAADW), Periyakulam referred the matter to the land acquisition Tribunal

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VODITHALA EDUCATION SOCIETY

Bench: A Closer Look At The Grounds Urged In The Memo Of Appeal, It Shall Be Apt To Have An Overview Of The Backgrounds Facts. Factual Background 3. The Gravamen Of Charge Against The Respondent Is That He Borrowed An Amount Of Rs. 20.00 Lacs From The Appellant & In Lieu, Issued A Cheque Bearing No. 2225230 Dated 03.05.2007, Drawn On The Citizens Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Vinayak Bazar, Jammu. The Appellant Presented The Cheque To His Banker, Jcc Bank, Jammu For Collection, Which On Presentation Came To Be Dishonoured

property transaction and there was no legally enforceable debt. Respondent also denied the receipt of demand notice. Therefore, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 14. Learned counsels on rival sides are in concurrence to the settled position of law that admission of issuance and signing of a cheque by an accused, gives rise to a statutory presumption

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. K. V. Srinivasa Rao

House. Vicky Thakur (PW7) is the owner of the motorcycle. Rinku (PW8) handed over the motorcycle to Sunil Kumar as per the direction of Vicky Thakur. Deepak Thakur (PW9) is the owner of the vehicle, who handed it over to accused Anil @ Sethu at his request. Dr. Vinay Gulati (PW10) was posted as a Medical Officer who declared that Vinod

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

house property No. 133/225 Rs. 3,40,000/- 16. Assessee preferred appeal against aforesaid order of assessment which has been partly allowed by Tribunal vide impugned judgment. Both parties have filed respective appeals to the extent order of Tribunal is against them. 17. Tribunal has considered various issues of Assessee and returned findings, in brief, as under:- (a) Warrant

The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Vaishnavi Educational Society

In the result, this Cross Objection is allowed and the suit is

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

house in Kerala. The second plaintiff who returned to her residence at Thiruvananthapuram many times demanded the first defendant to return the documents. But he was evading the return of the same by saying lame excuses. In that circumstances the plaintiffs respectively cancelled their power-of-attorney by executing revocation deeds on 22.07.2008 and 29.07.2008 and the matter of revocation

The Commissioner Of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s. PCL Intertech Lenhydro Consortium JV

Appeal is allowed, by setting the judgment of the trial

Bench: The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court Date Of Reservation 03/03/2023 Date Of Judgment 26/04/2023 Coram: The Hon'Ble Mr Justice G.Ilangovan Crl.A(Md)No.176 Of 2017 State Represented By The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras-104 (Crime No.13 Of 2003 Of V & A.C., Madurai) : Appellant/Complainant Vs. A.Arunagiri Personal Assistant To R.T.O (Rtd.,) Madurai North, Madurai. : Respondent/Complainant Prayer: Criminal Appeal Is Filed Under Section 378(1)(B) Of The Criminal Procedure Code, To Set Aside The Judgment Of Acquittal Of The Respondent Passed By The Special Court For Trial Of Cases Under The Prevention Of Corruption Act, Madurai, In Special Case No.15 Of 2011, Dated 17/11/2016. For Appellant : Mr.S.Ravi Additional Public Prosecutor For Respondent : Mr.K.M.Karunakaran Https://Www.Mhc.Tn.Gov.In/Judis

properties in his name and his family members, disproportionate to the known source of income to the tune of Rs.8,27,047/- as per schedule VII. The percentage of disproportionate asset is estimated at 57.14%. Upon which, a case in Crime No. 13 of 2003 was registered against the accused for the offence under section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/s. Murala Venkateswara Rao AND others

Appeal is dismissed,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

properties M.Os.1 to 7. During the cross-examination of P.W1, Exs.DI and 7. D2, through P.W5, Exs.D3 and D4, through P.W6, Exs.DS and D6 and through P.W8, Exs.D7 and D8 were marked. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused officer was examined under Section 313 CrPC to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence

The Commissioner of Income - Tax II vs. Transport Corporation of India Limited

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Budihal R.B.

house property bearing No.1229, 1st Stage, 1st Phase, 3 BTM Layout, Bangalore (Ward No.65), dated 09.12.2004 in favour of the appellant. The said agreement was registered. The agreed total sale consideration was Rs.70 Lakhs. Out of the said amount, the respondent received Rs.25 lakhs by cheque and the balance amount in cash, on different dates. The appellant submits that

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/s Padmapriya Real Estates AND Financiers

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment passed by

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

313, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court again analyzing the provisions contained in Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (parimateria provision to Section 13(1)(e) of the Act of 1988) held that it is not the mere acquisition of property that constitute an offence under the provisions

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

The Pr. Commissioner of Income tax (Central), vs. Sri Vaishnavi Educational Society,

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.51929/2014 C/W W.P.Nos.42063/2012, 30494/2013, 42671/2013, 638/2014, 797/2014, 1089/2014, 3211/2014, 3389/2014, 6180/2014, 10356/2014, 12014/2014, 12015/2014, 13043/2014, 13045/2014, 13206/2014, 13207/2014, 13398/2014, 13774/2014, 14149/2014, 14161/2014, 14494/2014, 14502/2014, 14521/2014, 14689/2014, 16646/2014, 17051/2014, 17594/2014, 19729/2014, 21158/2014, 23897/2014, 28861/2014, 30731/2014, 31723/2014, 33774/2014, 33777/2014, 34084/2014, 34259/2014, 34272/2014, 34391/2014, 35204/2014, 35243/2014, 35247/2014, 35305/2014, 35609/2014, 36164/2014, 36166/2014, 36489/2014, 36525/2014, 36971/2014, 37446/2014, 38055/2014, 38463/2014, 38471/2014, 38472/2014, 38661/2014, 38753/2014, 39383/2014, 39633/2014, 39832/2014, 40204/2014, 40379/2014, 41394/2014, 41422/2014, 41427/2014, 41428/2014, 41858/2014, 43815/2014, 43963/2014, 44306/2014, 44527/2014, 44742/2014, 44835/2014, 45486/2014, 46766/2014, 47103/2014, 47105/2014, 47106/2014, 47107/2014, 47608/2014, 47731/2014, 47821/2014, 47860/2014, 47913/2014, 48577/2014, 48880/2014, 49567/2014, 50260/2014, 50533/2014, 51294/2014, 51930/2014, 51931/2014, 51932/2014, 52760/2014, 53854/2014, 54059/2014, 54083/2014, 54236/2014

HOUSING AND URBAN DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE 560001 BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARAPARK WEST BANGALORE 20 R/P BY ITS COMMISSIONER 117 3. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARAPARK WEST BANGALORE 20 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.V. SHASHIKUMAR, AGA FOR R1) THIS W.P. IS FILED

The commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s Lanco Kondapalli Power (P) Ltd

313, Freight Forwarders, Premises, Plot No.5, Panvel Uran Road, Dongari, Navi Mumbai 400 707. …Petitioner Page 45 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 ~ versus ~ 1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Department of Registration and Stamps, Ministry of Revenue, Government