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-III vs. Sri N.Sai Baba Naidu

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

Section 143(3), the assessing officer examined the contention of the assessee that the rental income of `1,76,40,000/-, fell to be assessed under the head “income from house property

SMT. SHANTHA VIDYASAGAR ANNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2) HYDERABAD

In the result, the orders dated 09

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

house propery. 5. The assessing offrcer by arr order d,ated 21.O2.2OO2 inter atia held that the clevelopment agreement dated 04.05.1,196 is a transfer within the meaning of Section 2$7) of the Act. The assessing officer firrther held that the assessee is not eetitled to benefit of Section 54F of the Act. The assessing officer, therefore, determined

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

40,492 as a rental income from the flat/space given on rent to various parties. These spaces/flats were part of the stock and trade and the rental income was claimed as income from house property. The Assessee also claimed deduction of 1/5th of the repairs amounting to Rs. 41,29,837 under Section

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

40,492 as a rental income from the flat/space given on rent to various parties. These spaces/flats were part of the stock and trade and the rental income was claimed as income from house property. The Assessee also claimed deduction of 1/5th of the repairs amounting to Rs. 41,29,837 under Section

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

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

house and developed friendship with her and gradually developed interest in looking after the welfare of 1st defendant and catering to her needs. During that time, R. Devdas and Jude Devdas used to call upon 1st defendant to sign some papers stating that the papers are necessary to look after Tataguni estate properly and also to look after the paintings

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

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

property and to contract and by that name, sue and be sued. The object with which the National Housing Bank (herein after referred to as NHB/ Bank for short] was established is to provide long term finance for construction and/or purchase of residential housing or residential township-cum-housing development or slum clearance projects. The entire capital

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s. Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Ltd.,

house. I do not find any infirmity with the finding recorded by learned Additional Rent Controller on this score also.” 28. Thus this Court is now required to look into the finding with regard to negotiations for sale of the suit property. In the written statement the version of Vivek Lall was “That when the Petitioner was negotiating for sale

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 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

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.

housing on the plot in question. This letter is again addressed in favour of the respondent no.1 as it is the owner of the land. CS(OS) No.486/2011 Page 10 25. Much reliance has been placed by respondent no.2 on the letter dated 19.03.1986 addressed by the petitioner to the L&DO calling upon L& DO to keep the terms

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

40 years, Occupation; Household, 2. Aarti Dipak Kathed, Age; 22 years, Occupation; Education, 3. Pooja Dipak Kathed @ Pooja w/o Sumit Gundecha, Age; 20 years, Occupation; Education, 4. Madhu Depak Kathed, Age; 16 years, Occupation; Education, 5. Shriniwas Dipak kathed, Age; 12 years, Occupation; Education, 6. Sarsabai Shantilal Kathed, (Deleted as per order passed below Exh. 15 by Lower Court

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

M/s. Sathavahana Ispat Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

house property. The simple case is that the rent of a past year increased retrospectively shall be the annual rent of such past year or years but not the annual rent of the year in which it is received consequent upon subsequent increase.‖ 9. This judgment was followed by the same High Court in Hope (India

The Director of Income Tax-(Exemptions), vs. Vasavi Academy of Education

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

40,000/- from LIC Housing Finance Limited, that has not been taken into account despite the positive statement of one Somanath Patnaik, who belongs to that Housing Finance in that regard. It was submitted that said statement having been recorded in course of investigation, the prosecution cannot wriggle out of the same without any such cogent and acceptable material

The Commissioner of Income -Tax - III, vs. M/s. R.R. Finance and Projects Ltd.,

Appeal is allowed in-part

Bench: The Hon’Ble Dr. Justice H.B.Prabhakara Sastry

40. This contention has no merit. There are two distinct issues. The first issue is the breach by the RFA.No.308/2008 18 defendant vendor which gives a cause of action to the plaintiff to file a suit for specific performance. The second issue relates to the personal bar to enforcement of a specific performance by persons enumerated in Section

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