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

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Prefab Gratings Limited,

Bench: Honourable Mr. Justice Manish Choudhury Judgment & Order (Cav) Date : 24-05-2019

HOUSING COMPLEX R.G. BARUAH ROAD CHANDMARI GUWAHATI P.S. CHANDMARI GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM. 4:MD. MATIUR RAHMAN S/O ALHAZ AHMADUR RAHMAN R/O MOROMI PATH HATIGAON Page No.# 2/26 GUWAHATI-38 DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM. 5:MD. ABDUR RAHMAN S/O MD. ABDUL ALI R/O DEHAR KUNIHA ADHIYAPARA HAJO P.S. HAJO DIST.KAMRUP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.P HUJURI Advocate for the Respondent

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 3(2) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. 39. It is quite explicit from the available facts and evidence that, in order to arrange separate Bank loans for Mat.Appeal No.242 of 2012 & conn. cases 27 purchasing 'E' and 'O' schedule properties, in spite of executing Ext.B1 agreement in the name of Sri.Joy, separate agreements were executed

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 Pr. Commissioner of Income tax (Central), vs. Sri Vaishnavi Educational Society,

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.51929/2014 C/W W.P.Nos.42063/2012, 30494/2013, 42671/2013, 638/2014, 797/2014, 1089/2014, 3211/2014, 3389/2014, 6180/2014, 10356/2014, 12014/2014, 12015/2014, 13043/2014, 13045/2014, 13206/2014, 13207/2014, 13398/2014, 13774/2014, 14149/2014, 14161/2014, 14494/2014, 14502/2014, 14521/2014, 14689/2014, 16646/2014, 17051/2014, 17594/2014, 19729/2014, 21158/2014, 23897/2014, 28861/2014, 30731/2014, 31723/2014, 33774/2014, 33777/2014, 34084/2014, 34259/2014, 34272/2014, 34391/2014, 35204/2014, 35243/2014, 35247/2014, 35305/2014, 35609/2014, 36164/2014, 36166/2014, 36489/2014, 36525/2014, 36971/2014, 37446/2014, 38055/2014, 38463/2014, 38471/2014, 38472/2014, 38661/2014, 38753/2014, 39383/2014, 39633/2014, 39832/2014, 40204/2014, 40379/2014, 41394/2014, 41422/2014, 41427/2014, 41428/2014, 41858/2014, 43815/2014, 43963/2014, 44306/2014, 44527/2014, 44742/2014, 44835/2014, 45486/2014, 46766/2014, 47103/2014, 47105/2014, 47106/2014, 47107/2014, 47608/2014, 47731/2014, 47821/2014, 47860/2014, 47913/2014, 48577/2014, 48880/2014, 49567/2014, 50260/2014, 50533/2014, 51294/2014, 51930/2014, 51931/2014, 51932/2014, 52760/2014, 53854/2014, 54059/2014, 54083/2014, 54236/2014

SECTION 19(1) OF THE B.D.A. ACT ISSUED IN THE KARNATAKA GAZETTE DATED 18.06.2014 (ANNEX-A) IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY IS CONCERNED BEING PROPERTY NO.206, CARVED OUT IN SY.NO.48/1 OF DASARAHALLI VILLAGE AND ETC. IN W.P. NO. 43963/2014: BETWEEN: 1. SRI KRISHNAPPA 93 S/O.LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 2. SRI S. R. ANJINAPPA

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

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, and that in modern times when the legislatures enact laws to meet

The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) vs. Madhu Enterprises

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

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

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. 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- IT and TP vs. M/s. Louis Berger International Inc.,

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Section 18 and explained its significance in the following words: ―22. The significance of Section 18 of the Act can be understood in the light of the above provisions. Section 18 provides for provisional assessment of duty in cases specified in sub-section (1) of the section. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) deals with cases where the importer

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Section 18 and explained its significance in the following words: ―22. The significance of Section 18 of the Act can be understood in the light of the above provisions. Section 18 provides for provisional assessment of duty in cases specified in sub-section (1) of the section. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) deals with cases where the importer

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

Bench: The Learned

2 of 10 Act. 3. The subject matter of controversy in the appeals before the learned ITAT centres around the Assessee’s claim for deduction under Section 54F of the Act. 4. The Assessee filed her return of income for AY 2011-12 on 31.12.2011, declaring an income of ₹70,87,301/-. The Assessee also claimed a deduction

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

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

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed

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

properties or combinations, whether by hand labor or machine. (Tara Agencies[5]). The word 'manufacture' has been defined in Halsbury's Laws of England, (3rd Ed. Vol. 29 p.23) as a manner of adapting natural material by the hands of man or by man-made devices or machinery, and as the making of an article or material by physical labour

M/s. Canara Securities Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO,T.AMARNATH GOUD

54 of 300 Radha Devi Mohatta, being the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively. 3.3 OCO/9/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O No. 96 of 2020 filed by Arvind Kumar Newar and Nand Gopal Khaitan, being the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. 4. APO NO. 98 OF 2020 Appeal filed by Aditya Vikram Lodha 4.1 OCO/10/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s.Value Labs

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

property and is a Government Servant is earning sufficiently and opposite party no. 2 has rightly been directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant-opposite party no. 2 under Section 19 (f) of the D. V. Act. It is submitted that expense of -7- Rs. 30,000/- was incurred towards the medical expenses and the same was rightly