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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 24 (a) computed the income from house property at Rs. 9,73,182/-. 14. As per objects in the Memorandum of Association and also as per assessment order, the assessee is engaged in business of licensing the space in question. In this regard the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order is reproduced below:- “During

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

44 ITR 362 (SC), the Supreme Court held that the Assessee had rightly disclosed the income under the head „Income from Business‟ and restored the decision of the ITAT. 51.4 The said decision is distinguishable on fact in its application to the case on hand. Here the question is confined to the letting of properties forming ITA 210/2003 & connected matters

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

44 ITR 362 (SC), the Supreme Court held that the Assessee had rightly disclosed the income under the head „Income from Business‟ and restored the decision of the ITAT. 51.4 The said decision is distinguishable on fact in its application to the case on hand. Here the question is confined to the letting of properties forming ITA 210/2003 & connected matters

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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

44. We have discussed the aforesaid case laws in little more detail, even though we have indicated above that the Appellants – Petitioners are not entitled to raise these questions of law in view of its own reprehensible and abhorrent conduct in producing a false and fabricated document in the form of Exemption Order under Section

The Commissioner of Inccome Tax-III vs. Speectra Shares AND Scrips Pvt Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

44 ITR 362 6 (1967) 66 ITR 596 ITA Nos.11/2008, 12/2008, 279/2010, 282/2010, 292/2010 -16- KSBC, the rental income earned from such activity be reckoned as income from the business. According to him, the said argument is without merit. That, the mere fact the assessee derives operational advantage is not the criteria for classifying the rental income as income earned

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

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

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.

44 31. Another condition under Section 14(3)(c)(ii) is that the plaintiff has a substantial interest in the performance of the contract and the interest is of such a nature that compensation in money for non-performance of the contract is not an adequate relief. The intent of the section is to make a distinction between cases where

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

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Dr. T.Ravi Kumar,

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 10Th April, 2024. Appearance: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjay Bhowmick, Advocate Ms. Swapna Das, Advocate … For The Appellant. Ms. Smita Das De, Advocate … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Sanjay Bhowmick, Learned Counsel For The Appellant/Assessee & Ms. Smita Das De, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Respondent. 2. The Assessment Years Involved In The Present Appeal Are Assessment Year 1999-2000 & Assessment Year 2000-01. By Order Dated 16.08.2012, This Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :-

44,04,602/-. He also filed a letter dated 09.11.2002 in response to the letter of the ACIT, 5 Mumbai dated 09.09.2002 stating that it was by mistake and oversight that the income of leasing hotel has been shown in the return under the head “income from house property” and deduction in respect of such income has been wrongly claimed

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

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

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

44. In Emperor vs. Allahdad Khan, (1913) I.L.R. 35 All.358 Superintendent of Police and a Sub Inspector searched house of a person suspected of being in illicit possession of excisable articles and such articles have been found in house search. Court held that conviction of owner of the house under Section 63 of United Provinces 20 Excise Act, 1910 would

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

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S The A.P.Mahesh Coop. Urban Bank Ltd,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

property and Rs.83,60,46,867/- as income from the business of banking. The assessee claimed deduction of business income under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act. The assessing officer, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax took up the return for scrutiny and found that the assessee had Rs.61,87,16,546/- as statutory reserve

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. The Andhra Bank Employees Co.Operative Bank Limited

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

property and Rs.83,60,46,867/- as income from the business of banking. The assessee claimed deduction of business income under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act. The assessing officer, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax took up the return for scrutiny and found that the assessee had Rs.61,87,16,546/- as statutory reserve

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/s. The A.P.Vardhaman(Mahila)Cooperative Urban

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

property and Rs.83,60,46,867/- as income from the business of banking. The assessee claimed deduction of business income under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act. The assessing officer, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax took up the return for scrutiny and found that the assessee had Rs.61,87,16,546/- as statutory reserve