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

M/s. PLL-Suncon Joint Venture vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

house No. B-5/13, Safdarjung Enclave is concerned, he claimed 1/4th share each, i.e. himself, Arun Kapoor, Lalit Kapoor & Anil Kapoor. FAO(OS) 373/2011 Page 4 of 44 The learned arbitrator made an interim award on 01.06.2005; ultimately he made and announced his final award on 23.04.2009. These became the subject matter of challenge in proceedings under Section 34

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

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

property held under trust wholly or partly for charitable or religious purposes shall not be included in the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt of the income. A market committee, constituted under Section 4 of the AMC Act, as mandated by Section 15 of the AMC Act read with Rule 27 of the Rules

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

property held under trust wholly or partly for charitable or religious purposes shall not be included in the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt of the income. A market committee, constituted under Section 4 of the AMC Act, as mandated by Section 15 of the AMC Act read with Rule 27 of the Rules

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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Housing Society admeasuring 829.25 sq.mtrs. was of the individual ownership of the petitioner Pannaben Niranjan Mehta and was her self-acquired property. Thus the petitioner was the holder of the land in question within the meaning of the said term as envisaged under the provisions of the Act. In the circumstances, as prescribed under Rule 5 of the Rules read

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/S K.BHASKARA RAO AND OTHERS TUNI

Appeal is allowed

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

house, and the lessee had further sublet the same, to sub-lessees. On redemption the purchaser of the interest of the mortgagor filed a suit for possession of the property from the head lessee and the sub-lessees. The sub- lessees claimed the benefit of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (3 of 1949). In this High Court three

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

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, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

HOUSING PVT.LTD ...... Respondent Through: Mr. M.S. Syali, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arta Trana Panda and Ms. Gargi Sethee, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 5 of 36 J U D G M E N T Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.: 1. These are 11 appeals under Section 260-A of the Income

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

HOUSING PVT.LTD ...... Respondent Through: Mr. M.S. Syali, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arta Trana Panda and Ms. Gargi Sethee, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 5 of 36 J U D G M E N T Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.: 1. These are 11 appeals under Section 260-A of the Income

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

Commissioner of Income tax-VI vs. M/s. Narpat Girji Constructions,

The appeal is allowed

housing quarters for Rs.65,00,00,000/- Crores (Rupees sixty five crores only). The transaction entered into between the company in liquidation and the applicant-Society was not in ordinary course of business, the encumbrance is not on - 17 - OSA No. 19 of 2015 good faith. Before initiating winding up proceedings, the statutory notice would have been issued

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, vs. Sri Ranbir Singh Bagga

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

property or house tax in respect of buildings or lands other than agricultural lands, under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) District Municipalities Act, 1920 the Cantonment Act, 1924, or any law governing municipal or local bodies in any other part of India or under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) District Boards Act, 1920, in a panchayat which was a union

M/s. Kausalya Shelters Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 34 Petition. B. FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL ON ISSUE NO. 2 AND ISSUE NO. 7 VIZ. WHETHER THE SUB-LEASE DEED DATED NOVEMBER 06, 2018 WAS VALIDLY TERMINATED BY THE PETITIONER 57. Qua these issues, it was observed by the Tribunal that since the respondent had already validly terminated the sub-lease deed, which had taken effect on June

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.

34 performance should in the facts of a case be granted is a separate matter, bearing on the discretion of the court.” 61. In Shri Pradeep Shankar Walveka (supra), the Bombay High Court held as under: “11. Sub-section (2) of Section 14 deals with the contract to refer disputes of arbitration, Sub-section (3) is in two parts

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III HYDERABAD vs. M/s. Vasant Organics Private Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 134 (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by giving following information in writing to the Insurance Company : a) Insurance Policy Number and also its validity, b) The date and time of the accident, c) Particulars of persons injured and killed in the accident, d) Name of the driver and particulars of his driving license. 25. In the case

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI METTAM PENCHALA NAIDU

Bench: This Court That The 1St Assessment Order Of The Ito Was Passed On 28.03.1988, Which Was Challenged Before The Leaned Cit (A) & The Same Was Dismissed On 28.11.1988. Against The Said Order, The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Itat, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, Which Was Dismissed On 19.01.1990. Thereafter, By Order Dated 13.12.1990 Passed In A Misc. Application, The Order Dated 19.01.1990 Was Recalled & The Matter Was Heard Afresh. Again On 10.05.1991, Learned Tribunal Decided The Matter & Allowed The Exemption To The Assessee. The Revenue Filed Writ Petition Before This Court Challenging The Rectification Order Dated 13.12.1990. This Court On 02.12.1991 Allowed The Writ Petition & Quashed The Recalling Order Dated 13.12.1990 As Well As Its Substantive Order Dated

house property and does not have any brought forward loss under the head; or (iii) “Income from other sources”, except winnings from lottery or income from race horses, [and does not have any loss under the head] be in Form [SAHAJ] (ITR-1) and be verified in the manner indicated therein:] [Provided that the provisions of this clause shall

The Commissioner of Income Tax III,. vs. Sri Sudhir Sanghi

Bench: This Court That The 1St Assessment Order Of The Ito Was Passed On 28.03.1988, Which Was Challenged Before The Leaned Cit (A) & The Same Was Dismissed On 28.11.1988. Against The Said Order, The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Itat, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, Which Was Dismissed On 19.01.1990. Thereafter, By Order Dated 13.12.1990 Passed In A Misc. Application, The Order Dated 19.01.1990 Was Recalled & The Matter Was Heard Afresh. Again On 10.05.1991, Learned Tribunal Decided The Matter & Allowed The Exemption To The Assessee. The Revenue Filed Writ Petition Before This Court Challenging The Rectification Order Dated 13.12.1990. This Court On 02.12.1991 Allowed The Writ Petition & Quashed The Recalling Order Dated 13.12.1990 As Well As Its Substantive Order Dated

house property and does not have any brought forward loss under the head; or (iii) “Income from other sources”, except winnings from lottery or income from race horses, [and does not have any loss under the head] be in Form [SAHAJ] (ITR-1) and be verified in the manner indicated therein:] [Provided that the provisions of this clause shall