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

Bench: The Learned

54 and 54F of the Act. However, the said decisions would be equally applicable for construing the term ‘one residential house’ as used in clause (i) of the proviso to Section 54F of the Act. We say so because in Pawan Arya v. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) as well as in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gita Duggal: (supra

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

Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, as under: “Sale” defined.—‘‘Sale” is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part- paid and part-promised. Sale how made.—Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion

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

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

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

54, 111, 112 AND 113 OF 2010 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) INTRODUCTION Whether an Agriculture Market Committee constituted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under Section 4(1) of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (the AMC Act, for brevity), is an institution for charitable purpose? This is a core question

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

54, 111, 112 AND 113 OF 2010 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) INTRODUCTION Whether an Agriculture Market Committee constituted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under Section 4(1) of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (the AMC Act, for brevity), is an institution for charitable purpose? This is a core question

Smt.Sudia Indira vs. The Income Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal from order stand dismissed

house property in  Madurai town was rising fast and this must have induced the  plaintiff to wake up after 21/2 years and demand specific  performance. 11.  Sri  Sivasubramanium  cited  the  decision of  the  Madras High Court in S. V. Sankaraninga Nadar v. P.T.S.  Ratnaswamy Nadar. AIR 1952 Mad 389 holding that mere rise  in prices is no ground for denying

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. 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

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. 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

M/S VAIBHAV vs. JOINT COMM. OF INCOME TAX RANGE 3 HYD

Appeal is allowed and the judgments and decrees passed by the

Bench: The Learned Trial Court) Was Allowed & The Judgment & Decree Dated 12.12.2000, Passed By Learned Senior Sub Judge, Kullu Was Set-Aside. (Parties Shall Hereinafter Be Referred To In

house 18 will make the sale deed void. This reasoning is not correct. The learned First Appellate Court had itself noticed the definition of the sale in para 21 of its judgment and proceeded to hold in para 22 that the sale is the transfer of the ownership from the vendor to the vendee for the price paid or partly

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

Bench: Adverting To The Facts Of The Case It Is Beneficial To Mention Here That No Affidavit Had Been Filed On Behalf Of The State (Present Appellant In Both The Appeals) In Either Of The Two Writ Petitions. Learned Counsel Appearing For The State Before The Hon’Ble Single Judge Had Agreed For Disposal Of The Two Writ Petitions Without Affidavits Being Filed On The Ground That Arguments Have To Be Advanced On Question Of Law Only. 3. A Compendium Of Facts Relevant For Disposal Of These Appeals Is As Follows:

Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act by “change of name” of the company which is a juristic person in itself. In such a case the well-established protection of “veil of incorporation” as enunciated by House

Vidyananda Educational Society vs. The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Exemptions)II

Bench: The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court Dated : 12.08.2022 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice P.Velmurugan A.S. (Md) No.152 Of 2013 & Cross. Obj(Md)No.23 Of 2022 A.S(Md)No.152 Of 2013 The Special Tahsildar (La) Adi-Dravidar Welfare Periyakulam, Theni District. ... Appellant/Referring Officer Vs. Thiru.Manikandan (Died) 2.Mrs.Sornam 3.Mrs.Kaleeswari 4.Sivakumar 5.M.Kohiladevi ... Respondents/ Claimants Nos.2 To 5 Prayer: Appeal Suit Filed Under Section 54 Of The Land Acquisition Act, To Set Aside The Judgment & Decree, Dated 20.12.2006 Made In L.A.O.P.No. 11 Of 1996, On The File Of The Land Acquisition Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court-Cum-Fast Track No.4, Periyakulam. _________ Page 1 Of 15 Https://Www.Mhc.Tn.Gov.In/Judis

54 of the Land Acquisition Act, to set aside the judgment and decree, dated 20.12.2006 made in L.A.O.P.No. 11 of 1996, on the file of the Land Acquisition Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court-cum-Fast Track No.4, Periyakulam. _________ Page 1 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S. (MD) No.152 of 2013 & Cross.Obj(M)DNo.23 of 2022 For Appellant : Mr.T.Vilavankothai For Respondents : Mr.V.Raghavachari

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 :-

Section 24(1)(i)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1961’). Thus, in the revised return the assessee disclosed income of Rs.11,25,000/- under the head ‘income from house property’ and loss of Rs.2,19,28,436/- under the head “profit or gain from business or profession”. 4. On 07.11.2002, the assessee filed

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.

houses to be given as alternative accommodation to respondent nos. 2 and 3. 54. The Arbitrator refused to grant such additional directions and held as under:- “The reason is that all these directions relate to the events arising post award period. After I have given the award, I have no jurisdiction to give further directions. That jurisdiction would lie with

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

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 - 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

Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, praying to call for the entire records in O.S.No.1362/2002, on the file of the 7th Addl. City Civil Judge (CCH-19) Bangalore and to set aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.1362/2002 dated 16.01.2008 on the file of the 7th Addl. City Civil Judge

Sri Damodarlal Badruka vs. The Income Tax Officer

The appeal is allowed but in the circumstances with

Bench: A RAMALINGESWARA RAO,DILIP B. BHOSALE

54 F read with Section 45 of the Act. This was on the basis that in lieu of the consideration in terms of money, the Builder had constructed the new residential house. 6. On 17th December, 1992 the Assessee entered into an agreement for sale of two of the flats from her share in the property