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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

43. With great respects, we may only observe and as we have held in the case of Heirs of Deceased Jethabhai Ishwarbhai (Supra), decided on 22.1.2021, that Section 10(6) of the ULC Act does not envisage the issuance of any Notice at all and nor the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma (Supra

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

house property. The Assessee also claimed deduction of 1/5th of the repairs amounting to Rs. 41,29,837 under Section 24 of the Act. 43

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

house property. The Assessee also claimed deduction of 1/5th of the repairs amounting to Rs. 41,29,837 under Section 24 of the Act. 43

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

43, 45, 69, 75, 77, 88 and 89, no document shall be registered under this Act, unless the persons 64 executing such document, or their representatives, assigns or agents authorized as aforesaid, appear before the registering officer within the time allowed for presentation under sections 23, 24, 25 and 26: Provided that, if owing to urgent necessity or unavoidable accident

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.,

Section 114 Illustration „g‟ for non-production of the Will to determine the issue of alternative accommodation which was thus contrary to the record. 38. As noted above, learned ARC relied upon the cross-examination of Harminder Koghar recorded in the civil suit Ex.PW1/R2 extensively as noted in para 35 above. However learned ARC failed to notice that the statement

Smt.Sudia Indira vs. The Income Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal from order stand dismissed

43 Rule 1(r) read with section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908  is  the   order  dated  24.9.2012  passed  in  Civil  Suit   Nos.79/2011   and  80/2011 respectively passed below Exh­5, whereby the learned trial  Judge rejected injunction application pending the suit for restraining the  defendants,   their   servants,   agents   from   transferring,   selling,   gifting,  renting or creating third party right

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.

43. This takes me to the further submission of the learned counsel for respondent no. 1 wherein he submits that in the present case, Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act before amendment would not be applicable as the present is not a case of a contract to transfer immovable property. He submits that for the purposes of falling under

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

house property. Even after the death of the deceased, this income towards rent, is continued and therefore, this amount shall be deducted from the gross annual income of the deceased while assessing the compensation amount. 10 fa963.05 Shantaram Vs Janabai & Ors 8. Next submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that the wife of the deceased continued

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [TDS] HYDERABAD vs. M/S GHMC ,HYDERABAD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

House, Hauz Khas, New Delhi- 110016. The property documents are not available, steps are being taken to ascertain the title docs. This address has been used by the Dahiya Brothers for all their companies. Title documents of the said property have not been made available to the Official Liquidator.” 14.1 It is contended by the Official Liquidator that in view

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

43 years, Occ.Agriculturist, R/o.At & Post Zada, Tal.Dhamangaon (Railway), Dist.Amarawati Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra, through ACB, BMU Respondent WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.312 OF 2013 Smt.Sunita Subhashrao Gaynar, Age 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

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

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 - IV vs. M/s. Mekins Agro Product (P) Ltd.

43 (SC). We shall refer to this judgment subsequently. In order to appreciate the contention raised by the Revenue, we would like to give one example which would clarify the contention or the issue raised before us. An assessee, a charitable institution, say has income from property held underTrustof Rs.1,00,000/-. As per mandate of clause

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

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. M/S GOLDEN STAR FACILITIES AND SERVICES PVT LTD., HYD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Section 13 which provides for Rule making power of the Central Government in respect of minerals. Section 13 subsection (1) WP(C). 11249/2010 & other contd cases. -:88:- and Section 13 Sub-section (2) in so far as relevant in the present case are as follows: “13. Power of Central Government to make Rules in respect of minerals.-- (1) The Central