S.l. Shiva Raj vs. Commissioner of Income Tax,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section- 94(3) of the JVAT Act, to contend inter-alia that since the rules are required to be placed before the State Legislature, the same by itself necessarily implies that the Rule making power conferred upon the State Government enabled the State Government to frame rules with retrospective effect. 43. In our opinion, the said contention raised

The commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s Lanco Kondapalli Power (P) Ltd

House, Nhava Sheva. 5. Commissioner of Customs, Office of the Commissioner of Customs (NS-1), Jawaharlal Nehru Customs House, Nhava Sheva. …Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2091 OF 2022 Balkrishna Industries Ltd, Page 108 of 198 22nd March 2024 Saurer Textile Solutions Pvt Ltd v The State of Maharashtra & Ors & Connected Writ Petitions 1-2-oswp-1494-2023-J+.docx

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

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-V, vs. Sri Vinod Krishna Conjeevaram,

The appeal is dismissed

House, 1st Main, Mahalakshmi Layout Extn., Bangalore-560 086. ...RESPONDENT (By Sri A Shankar and Sri M Lava, Advocates) -0-0-0-0-0- This ITA is filed under Section 260-A of I.T. Act, 1961 arising out of Order dated 31.7.2013 passed in ITA No.764/Bang/2012 for the Assessment Year 2008- 09 to decide the foregoing question

The Commissioner of Income Tax - I vs. M/s. BBL Foods (Earlier Amber Biscuits P Ltd.)

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

4 and odd cents was excluded. Though she would say that, there was a sale agreement for this property, she does not know its details. She is not able to say anything about the agreement for purchasing that property. The total consideration for that property was Rs.3,60,000/-. Though she deposed that she has got some documents to prove

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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

45 of 76 C/LPA/94/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2021 RAVJIBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL SINCE DECD. THR'HEIRS V/s ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY U.L.C. interest in,or charge on, the property. This is expressly declared in Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. (See Rambaran Prosad v. Ram Mohit Hazra [1967]1 SCR 293). The fiduciary character of the personal obligation created

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX vs. M/S V.SATAYANARAYANA

The appeal is allowed

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

house at 7 o'clock in the evening. The girl was unconscious during the day. PW 2 told her husband as to what had happened to their daughter. The police station was at a distance of 15 km. According to the testimony of PW 1 no mode of conveyance was available. The police was reported to the next day morning

ANDHRA BANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, HYDERABAD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, HYDERABAD

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

4 of the Specinl Cou rt Ar-.t should lrc orotected. 18.2. Further 'lribunaLl nored that insofar the assessee is concerned, the transactions were entered into prior to introduction of the Spccral Court Act. Assessee had purchased the bonds prior to the notifred date and had taken delivery thereof. It, thus, became property of the assessee ald could

ANDHRA BANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

4 of the Specinl Cou rt Ar-.t should lrc orotected. 18.2. Further 'lribunaLl nored that insofar the assessee is concerned, the transactions were entered into prior to introduction of the Spccral Court Act. Assessee had purchased the bonds prior to the notifred date and had taken delivery thereof. It, thus, became property of the assessee ald could

ANDHRA BANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD,. HYDERABAD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, HYDERABAD

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

4 of the Specinl Cou rt Ar-.t should lrc orotected. 18.2. Further 'lribunaLl nored that insofar the assessee is concerned, the transactions were entered into prior to introduction of the Spccral Court Act. Assessee had purchased the bonds prior to the notifred date and had taken delivery thereof. It, thus, became property of the assessee ald could

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5 vs. M/s Vijay Textiles Limited

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

housing project as per the Revised Comprehensive Development Plan – Zoning of Land Use and Regulations approved by Government vide G.O. No.HUD 139 MNJ 94 DATED 5-1-1995. II. The First Party has offered to the Second Party or his nominees the Joint development rights of the above Survey Numbers which offer the Second Party has accepted in good faith

Commissioner of Income Tax- IT and TP vs. M/s. Louis Berger International Inc.,

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

4 to 9 of the 2007 Rules. 16.6. The proper officer can raise doubts as to the truth or accuracy Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:27.11.2024 18:20:25 Signature Not Verified CUSAA 26/2022 & connected matters Page 50 of 137 of the declared value on ―certain reasons‖ which could include the grounds specified in sub-clauses

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s. Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

4 to 9 of the 2007 Rules. 16.6. The proper officer can raise doubts as to the truth or accuracy Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:27.11.2024 18:20:25 Signature Not Verified CUSAA 26/2022 & connected matters Page 50 of 137 of the declared value on ―certain reasons‖ which could include the grounds specified in sub-clauses

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

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

45 under Section 112(I) of Income Tax Rules, pursuant whereto search was conducted at Assessee's premises on 28.11.1996 was produced before Tribunal, which are quoted in para 11.2 of Tribunal's order and relevant extract thereof reads as under:- “FORM NO.45” Warrant of authorisation under section 132 of the Income- tax Act, 1961, and rule

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 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. L. SURYAKANTHAM, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

4, the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court while 45 / 54 dealing with the nature and permissible extent of delegative powers under Article 245 of the Constitution observed thus - “4. It is now well-established by the decisions of this court that the power of delegation is a constituent element of the legislative power as a whole