The Commissioner of Income Tax-V vs. M/s.Sri Somnath Wood Industries

In the result, revision application succeeds

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

49 years, Occu.: Architect, R/o 4106 Hansen Ave, Fremont CA, USA 94536 ..APPLICANTS VERSUS M/s Empire General Agencies, Through its Partner Sunilkumar Lekhraj Khairajani Age: 48 years, Occu.: Business, R/o Station Road, Parbhani ..RESPONDENT .... Mr. S.S. Rathi, Advocate for applicants Mr. M.M. Bhokarikar, Advocate for respondent .... CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT, J. RESERVED ON : 23rd AUGUST, 2022 PRONOUNCED ON :15th DECEMBER

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

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

Section 24 of the Act. 43. During the assessment proceedings, in its reply dated 15th December 1997 to the query raised by the AO, the Assessee pointed out that there is nothing in law which prohibited the leasing out of stock and trade. It relied on the decision in CIT v. Chagan Das and Company 54 ITR 17 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

Section 24 of the Act. 43. During the assessment proceedings, in its reply dated 15th December 1997 to the query raised by the AO, the Assessee pointed out that there is nothing in law which prohibited the leasing out of stock and trade. It relied on the decision in CIT v. Chagan Das and Company 54 ITR 17 where

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

49 5 (1962) 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

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 of 3rd defendant. Thus, the direct execution of the sale deed Ex.P1 is spoken by PW1 and PW6 but the legal formality of registration was not effected. 82. The features of valid contract as mentioned in Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 are offer and acceptance, legal relationship, contractual capacity, competency of the parties to enter into

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

house in India for himself and his family so as to own, possess and enjoy the same in his old age and visit his mother country India as and when he desires. The RC.REV. 392/2013 & 394/2013 Page 12 of 46 petitioner led the evidence that he has been paying exorbitant prices/charges for the hotel for his stay

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI METTAM PENCHALA NAIDU

Bench: This Court That The 1St Assessment Order Of The Ito Was Passed On 28.03.1988, Which Was Challenged Before The Leaned Cit (A) & The Same Was Dismissed On 28.11.1988. Against The Said Order, The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Itat, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, Which Was Dismissed On 19.01.1990. Thereafter, By Order Dated 13.12.1990 Passed In A Misc. Application, The Order Dated 19.01.1990 Was Recalled & The Matter Was Heard Afresh. Again On 10.05.1991, Learned Tribunal Decided The Matter & Allowed The Exemption To The Assessee. The Revenue Filed Writ Petition Before This Court Challenging The Rectification Order Dated 13.12.1990. This Court On 02.12.1991 Allowed The Writ Petition & Quashed The Recalling Order Dated 13.12.1990 As Well As Its Substantive Order Dated

49,580. A sum of Rs. 30,91,093 which represented the amount receivable from sundry debtors was added to the figure of loss disclosed. The exclusion of this amount from the turnover was concluded to be improper. The assessee challenged the assessment in appeal before the CIT, (A), Orissa, who affirmed the addition. The matter was carried in appeal

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

Bench: This Court That The 1St Assessment Order Of The Ito Was Passed On 28.03.1988, Which Was Challenged Before The Leaned Cit (A) & The Same Was Dismissed On 28.11.1988. Against The Said Order, The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Itat, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, Which Was Dismissed On 19.01.1990. Thereafter, By Order Dated 13.12.1990 Passed In A Misc. Application, The Order Dated 19.01.1990 Was Recalled & The Matter Was Heard Afresh. Again On 10.05.1991, Learned Tribunal Decided The Matter & Allowed The Exemption To The Assessee. The Revenue Filed Writ Petition Before This Court Challenging The Rectification Order Dated 13.12.1990. This Court On 02.12.1991 Allowed The Writ Petition & Quashed The Recalling Order Dated 13.12.1990 As Well As Its Substantive Order Dated

49,580. A sum of Rs. 30,91,093 which represented the amount receivable from sundry debtors was added to the figure of loss disclosed. The exclusion of this amount from the turnover was concluded to be improper. The assessee challenged the assessment in appeal before the CIT, (A), Orissa, who affirmed the addition. The matter was carried in appeal

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 at Anand Lok was under demolition and an apartment building was to be constructed there. For those apartments, secret bookings were alleged to have been made and money was received by family members of the petitioners. The note of Respondents No. 2 & 3 there stated that 21 the petitioners did not disclose receipt of compensation in income

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

49 years. c. Smt. Manjula N., D/o late R. Nagendra, Aged about 38 years. All are residing at No.131/97, Bilekahalli, Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru-560 076. ...Appellants (By Sri. B.Ramaswamy Iyengar, Advocate for A-1 (a to c) AND: C.V.L. Satyakumar, Son of late G.S.Viswanath, Since deceased by his LRs : RFA.No.308/2008 2 a. Smt. Vasantha Wife of late C.V.L.Sathyakumar, Aged

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

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

The Commissioner of Income-Tax - VI, vs. Shri Mekala Bal Reddy

properties to the place of incident. Further, P.W-2 stated that he reached at the place of the incident at about 12.30 a.m. Devendra and other accused were not sitting in their 'Gher' rather they were sitting on the road on Cots having Hukka. They were sitting in front of their 'Gher' on the North side, on the road