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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

50 absolute owner of 'B' and 'C' schedule properties and so, she is entitled to get the relief of mandatory injunction as well as prohibitory injunction with respect to those properties. So, the finding of the Family Court with respect to 'B and 'C' schedule property (item 6 and 7) is liable to be upheld. VII. 'H' schedule property (item

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

50 of 137 of the declared value on ―certain reasons‖ which could include the grounds specified in sub-clauses (a) to (f) in clause (iii) of the Explanation. 16.7. The proper officer, on a request made by the importer, has to furnish and intimate to the importer in writing the grounds for doubting the truth or accuracy of the value

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

50 of 137 of the declared value on ―certain reasons‖ which could include the grounds specified in sub-clauses (a) to (f) in clause (iii) of the Explanation. 16.7. The proper officer, on a request made by the importer, has to furnish and intimate to the importer in writing the grounds for doubting the truth or accuracy of the value

The Commissioner of Income Tax(Central) vs. M/s.Madhu Enterprises

Bench: The Learned

house, other than the new asset, on the date of the transfer of the original asset; or” 14. The AO held that the Assessee had more than one residential unit on the date of transfer of the original asset and therefore, disallowed the entire deduction claimed under Section 54F of the Act. It is material to note that the Assessee

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 13 confers overriding effect on the Special Court Act. It says that provisions of the Special Court Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act or in any decree or order

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 13 confers overriding effect on the Special Court Act. It says that provisions of the Special Court Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act or in any decree or order

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 13 confers overriding effect on the Special Court Act. It says that provisions of the Special Court Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act or in any decree or order

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. M/S NMDC LIMITED

In the result, this Appeal Suit is partly allowed by modifying the

Bench: The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court Reserved On : 19.03.2024 Delivered On : 18.06.2024 Coram The Hon'Ble Mrs.Justice L.Victoria Gowri A.S.(Md)No.110 Of 2015 1.S.Govindasamy 2.S.Rajaraman 3.S.Kalaiselvan ... Appellants

Section 8 of Indian Succession Act, 1956. Thus, categorically contending that the judgment of the learned Trial Court need to be modified with respect to the property in item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and 11th item, that is the temple property and all the other reliefs as granted by the learned Trial Court is absolutely valid

Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur. vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Kangiri.

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

50)/R-2/CIT-GNT/2006-07, dated 12.12.2006 rejecting the application for registration under Section 12A of the IT Act. It may be mentioned that the applications made by eleven other AMCs in Prakasam District were also rejected by separate orders passed on the same date. AMC then filed I.T.A.No.268/Vizag/07, before the Visakhapatnam Bench of the Tribunal. This appeal and appeals filed

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

50)/R-2/CIT-GNT/2006-07, dated 12.12.2006 rejecting the application for registration under Section 12A of the IT Act. It may be mentioned that the applications made by eleven other AMCs in Prakasam District were also rejected by separate orders passed on the same date. AMC then filed I.T.A.No.268/Vizag/07, before the Visakhapatnam Bench of the Tribunal. This appeal and appeals filed

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

50 years, Occu.: Advocate, R/o As above 1-C. Shobha Shriballabh Randad Age: 60 years, Occu.: Household, R/o C-8, Green Field Society, Shiv Teerth Nagar, Paud Road, Pune 1-D. Vidya Ashwinikumar Manihar Age: 58 years, Occu.: Household, R/o “Amar Shanti”, Nr. Lala Building, Avdhootwadi, Yawatmal 1-E. Manju Gokul Rathi Age: 55 years, Occu.: Household, R/o Flat

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 :-

house property” and deduction in respect of such income has been wrongly claimed under Section 24. Accordingly, he requested the said income to be treated as income under the head “income from business or profession”. He also claimed interest of Rs.60,50

Commissioner of Income Taxd vs. M/sA.,Venjkatarao AND Others

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

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

houses are not really the objects, but were clauses stipulating the powers of the trustees. Having thus made a distinction between the objects and powers, the CIT (Appeals) proceeded to examine Section 11(4A) vis-à- vis Section 11(4) of the Act. He held that the amended provisions of Section 11(4A) would apply from the assessment year

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

50,000/- through cheques in favour of 1st defendant on various dates. After receipt of sale consideration on various dates, 1st defendant executed a sale deed on 16.02.1992 in favour of the plaintiff-Company conveying the schedule property in the presence of the witnesses. The possession of the schedule property was also delivered to the plaintiff- Company on that

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

house property. 61. The CIT(A) reversed this finding of the AO holding that the lease of ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 28 of 36 space is a part of the Assessee‟s business and such expenditure incurred on the lease is a part of the business and such expenditure and exploitation of the stock in trade is admissible

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. 61. The CIT(A) reversed this finding of the AO holding that the lease of ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 28 of 36 space is a part of the Assessee‟s business and such expenditure incurred on the lease is a part of the business and such expenditure and exploitation of the stock in trade is admissible

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