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 24(2) OF RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT 2013. IN W.P.NO.797/2014: BETWEEN: SRI.N.RAMAIAH S/O. LATE NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/A NO.708, HEANNUR MAIN ROAD, KAVERI SERVICE STATION, KALYAN NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 043. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. G. PAPI REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA

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

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

x B i.e. 500 x15000 C 15,000/- Rs.500/- ITC which was permitted to be adjusted= Rs.500-300(CST liability). Balance - Rs.200/- was permitted to be carried forward for the next financial year. 31. By insertion of substituted proviso for the first time under the JVAT Act, a provision has been inserted for forfeiture of the amount of Rs.200/- which

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

x B i.e. 500 x15000 C 15,000/- Rs.500/- ITC which was permitted to be adjusted= Rs.500-300(CST liability). Balance - Rs.200/- was permitted to be carried forward for the next financial year. 31. By insertion of substituted proviso for the first time under the JVAT Act, a provision has been inserted for forfeiture of the amount of Rs.200/- which

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

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

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

x) Even if the provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC many not be attracted for protecting interest of the parties in the pending administration suit but the Court can appropriately deal with the situation wherever it relates to protection and preservation of the estate of the deceased in the pending proceedings. Thus, the Court held that

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Hyderabad House Pvt Ltd.,

property taken care of. Case ‘G’ : MAC Appeal No.175/2014 (In re: death of seventeen years‟ old child Hussain Haider) 15. The appeal presented by the insurance company which has been fastened with the liability to pay the compensation assails the judgment of the tribunal pronounced on 31.10.2013 whereby compensation in the sum of Rs.12,02,075/- was awarded in favour

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 and developed friendship with her and gradually developed interest in looking after the welfare of 1st defendant and catering to her needs. During that time, R. Devdas and Jude Devdas used to call upon 1st defendant to sign some papers stating that the papers are necessary to look after Tataguni estate properly and also to look after the paintings

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

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 - VI, vs. Shri Mekala Bal Reddy

x 2 cm on right leg. Opinion:- Both injuries were caused by blunt object. Injuries were fresh. Injury no.2 was simple and kept under observation.” 28. The injury report was proved as Exhibit Kha-'1' by P.W-4 being in his handwriting and signature. 16 29. With regard to other injured, on the accused side, P.W-4 stated that he had examined

THEE COMMSSR.OF INCOME TAX.HYD. vs. CHALLA SHANKER REDDY.HYD.

Bench: L.NARASIMHA REDDY,T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

56. Moreo,,,er 2n agent must have a pre_existingl interest in the principal's assets for an agency to be irrevocable. S:c1it,n 2O2 of |ne Indian Contrar:t P t:t, 7872, provides that where the agent L imself has an interest in the prcperty, which forms the subject rnatl er < f the agency, the agency canno

COMMR.OF I.T. RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/S.NARAYANA CHOWDARYAND ORS KAKINADA

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

56. Moreo,,,er 2n agent must have a pre_existingl interest in the principal's assets for an agency to be irrevocable. S:c1it,n 2O2 of |ne Indian Contrar:t P t:t, 7872, provides that where the agent L imself has an interest in the prcperty, which forms the subject rnatl er < f the agency, the agency canno

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - (TDS), vs. M/s. Suman Chit Funds (P) Ltd.,

56. Moreo,,,er 2n agent must have a pre_existingl interest in the principal's assets for an agency to be irrevocable. S:c1it,n 2O2 of |ne Indian Contrar:t P t:t, 7872, provides that where the agent L imself has an interest in the prcperty, which forms the subject rnatl er < f the agency, the agency canno

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 [Exemptions] vs. Water and Land Management Training AND Research Institute

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice R.Nataraj

HOUSE RENT REVISION PETITION NO.56 OF 2017 BETWEEN: 1. M/S MAHENDRA WATCH COMPANY A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS MR. RAJESH KUMAR, S/O SHANTHILALJI, SHOP NO.1, GROUND FLOOR, MARUTHI PLAZA, U.M. LANE, BLOCK-C, CHICKPET, BENGALURU-560053 (THE PRESENT PARTNERS OF THE FIRM ARE SRI ASHISH M. JAIN AND ATUL JAIN) 2. SRI. ASHISH M. JAIN S/O SRI MOHANLALJI

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 IV vs. Shri Raaj Kumar Jain

Section 27 begins with a proviso and states that when any fact is deposed to as discovered, in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved, 49 whether it amounts to a confession