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

section 57; or (ii) “Income from house property”, where assessee does not own more than one house property and does

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

section 57; or (ii) “Income from house property”, where assessee does not own more than one house property and does

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.

57. Sub Section 1 of Section 14 prior to amendments is also relevant and is quoted hereinbelow:- “14. Contracts not specifically enforceable.- (1) The following contracts cannot be specifically enforced, namely:- (a) a contract for the non-performance of which compensation in money is an adequate relief; (b) a contract which runs into such minute or numerous details or which

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 :-

57,59,010/-. During the assessment year in question, the assessee had leased the hotel vide agreement dated 01.11.1998. Lease rent received by the assessee for the period from 01.11.1998 to 31.3.1999 was Rs.15,00,000/-. The 3 assessee filed a revised return of income on 30.11.2000 showing income of Rs.11,25,000/- under head “income from house property

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

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

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

M/s Vodafone Essar South Ltd., vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income tax,

property cannot be called as abetment to acquire. Hence, no case is made out to frame charge against the applicant.  Learned APP submitted that while  while entertaining the application for discharge the Court is not required to conduct roving inquiry.   The documents on record are sufficient to frame charge against   applicant.     It   is   further   submitted   that   accused   no.1 established

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

Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

House hold R/o H.NO. 15- 6-215, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad. through GPA Holder Khaja Moinuddin, age 57 years, R/o Flat No.1003, Mount Nasir, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 4. Mrs. Rasheeda Parveen, Wo Khaja Yousufuddin R/o Flat NO.1OO3, Mount Nasir, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 5. Mrs. Qamarunnisa Begum lsince deceased per LRs, Respondents No. 7 to 13 hereinl 6. Khaja Badaruddin, S/o late Nizamuddin

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agrilcultural Market Committee

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

House hold R/o H.NO. 15- 6-215, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad. through GPA Holder Khaja Moinuddin, age 57 years, R/o Flat No.1003, Mount Nasir, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 4. Mrs. Rasheeda Parveen, Wo Khaja Yousufuddin R/o Flat NO.1OO3, Mount Nasir, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 5. Mrs. Qamarunnisa Begum lsince deceased per LRs, Respondents No. 7 to 13 hereinl 6. Khaja Badaruddin, S/o late Nizamuddin

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. M/S GOLDEN STAR FACILITIES AND SERVICES PVT LTD., HYD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

57. He further submitted that by virtue of the powers conferred under Entry 54 of List I, the Central Government have enacted the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. Referring to Section 2 of the Act, 1957, which speaks about declaration as to the expediency of Union control, he submitted that it is declared that it is expedient

The Director of Income Tax-(Exemptions), vs. Vasavi Academy of Education

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

57 OCR (SC) 503. In the cited case, in the investigation, a conclusion had been arrived that the father and mother of the public servant had no independent income commensurate with the property and pecuniary resources found acquired in their name. This was the reason for the court to hold that the property in the name of income tax assessee

The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Vaishnavi Educational Society

In the result, this Cross Objection is allowed and the suit is

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

house in Kerala. The second plaintiff who returned to her residence at Thiruvananthapuram many times demanded the first defendant to return the documents. But he was evading the return of the same by saying lame excuses. In that circumstances the plaintiffs respectively cancelled their power-of-attorney by executing revocation deeds on 22.07.2008 and 29.07.2008 and the matter of revocation

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

Bench: L.NARASIMHA REDDY,T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

57 18 2004 (8) SCC :;79 ts (79991 3 SCC I;-73 48 that the case set up by the party is not correct' In the present case' N.Subash as D.W.l duly entered the witness box and gave a detailed deposition on all the applicable facts in the four Suits underlying the GPA Appeals which involved identical isgues and commonality