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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

36 Is rental income business income or income from house property? 41. The next issue that arises is whether rental income earned by the Assessee from its stock and trade should be treated as income from house property (IHP), as claimed by the Assessee, or as business income? 42. The question arose even in AY 1995-96 where

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

36 Is rental income business income or income from house property? 41. The next issue that arises is whether rental income earned by the Assessee from its stock and trade should be treated as income from house property (IHP), as claimed by the Assessee, or as business income? 42. The question arose even in AY 1995-96 where

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

Bench: The Learned

property bearing address D-6/5, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. According to the AO, the basement and second floor were required to be considered as two separate residential houses. 13. In terms of clause (i) to the proviso to Section 54F(1) of the act, the said section would not apply if the assessee owned more than one residential house

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

36. From the said deposition the learned ARC came to the conclusion that the petitioner has other properties which were on rent and the petitioner has at least one more property apart from the suit property and the premises in Hansalaya Building. The learned ARC further noted that in the written statement the respondents stated about the property in Lajpat

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 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

36. As stated above, this court while admitting the appeal on 11-06-2013 framed the following substantial question of law: 1. Can there be a declaration that sale deed dated 16-2-1992 which is unregistered is valid and does 40 it not negate the Section 17 of the Registration Act? 2. Can there be a declaration that

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 10 of the Act, the immovable property has to be sufficiently identifiable. Relying upon Clause 3, 11 and 12 of the Collaboration Agreement, he submits that the parties were yet to agree on the plans for construction and only the ratio CS(OS) No.486/2011 Page 18 as per which such constructed portion is to be divided amongst the parties

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

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

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

36. Similar power of search and seizure under Section 41 of Madras General Sales Tax of 1969 was upheld in Commissioner of Commercial Taxes vs. Ramkishan Shrikishan Jhaver, (1967) 66 ITR 664. Court held that an officer empowered by Government was entitled to effect search and seize goods and articles as provided in that section. It also held that

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

36 years, Occ.Agriculturist, R/o.At & Post Waghovli, Post Parsodi, Tal.Chandur Railway, District Amarawati Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra, through ACB, BMU Respondent 2 of 31 REVN.309.2013 & Group.doc WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.313 OF 2013 Miss Nilaxi J. Augad @ Mrs.Nilaxi Shyam Lohi, Ae 33 years, Occ.presently housewife, R/o.11, Bhalchandra, Near Weldone Saloon, Sharanpur Road, Canada Corner, Nashik. Applicant versus The State

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

Appeal is partly allowed

house and to take care of ailing Smt. Rathnamma. “ (Emphasis supplied by us) 28 35. Thus, it was admitted that marriage of defendant no.2 with defendant no.1 took place during subsistence of his marriage with plaintiffs’ mother Smt.Rathnamma, which rendered it void as per Section 11 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The resultant conclusion would be that defendant no.3 would

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

House Rates Control Act for eviction on the ground of sub-letting, Page 11 of 36 C/CRA/79/2007 JUDGMENT the landlord has preferred an appeal wherein the judgment was reversed and it was held that mere fact that tenant is a majority shareholder does not sufficient to disprove sub-letting. It was shown that tenant is actually controlling and managing business

M/S VAIBHAV vs. JOINT COMM. OF INCOME TAX RANGE 3 HYD

Appeal is allowed and the judgments and decrees passed by the

Bench: The Learned Trial Court) Was Allowed & The Judgment & Decree Dated 12.12.2000, Passed By Learned Senior Sub Judge, Kullu Was Set-Aside. (Parties Shall Hereinafter Be Referred To In

house 18 will make the sale deed void. This reasoning is not correct. The learned First Appellate Court had itself noticed the definition of the sale in para 21 of its judgment and proceeded to hold in para 22 that the sale is the transfer of the ownership from the vendor to the vendee for the price paid or partly

Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

house property and whereas, the subject matter of the suit is ground floor Mulgi with corresponding first floor rooms. Thus, declaring the sale deeds in favour of the Appellants as void, is untenable and against the spirit of the above provision. 4.2. Section 52 does not operate to extinguish the title of the Appellants herein. It was specilically contended

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agrilcultural Market Committee

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

house property and whereas, the subject matter of the suit is ground floor Mulgi with corresponding first floor rooms. Thus, declaring the sale deeds in favour of the Appellants as void, is untenable and against the spirit of the above provision. 4.2. Section 52 does not operate to extinguish the title of the Appellants herein. It was specilically contended