Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Nara Constructions,

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

6 of 16 (iii) a banking company; (iv) a co-operative bank other than a primary agricultural credit society or a primary co-operative agricultural and rural development bank; (v) a housing finance company; and (vi) any other financial corporation including a public company; (b) "eligible business" means,— (i) in respect of the specified entity referred to in sub-clause

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

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

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

c). In all the three sub-sections the words used are “income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable purposes”. Under Section 11(4) the expression “property held under trust” includes a business undertaking so held. In other words, income from business undertaking held for charitable purposes can fall under Section 11 subject to such income fulfilling

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

c). In all the three sub-sections the words used are “income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable purposes”. Under Section 11(4) the expression “property held under trust” includes a business undertaking so held. In other words, income from business undertaking held for charitable purposes can fall under Section 11 subject to such income fulfilling

Commissioenr of Income Tax vs. Dr. T. Ravi Kumar

house, etc. In the case of CIT vs. Jai Bharat Maruti Ltd. (2007) 212 CTR (Del>)250, the High Court has held that recording of satisfaction by AO is sine quo non for the purpose of initiating penalty under Section 271(1) (c). From the reading of the assessment order it is not clear that whether the AO was satisfied

The Commissioner of Income TAx-IV, vs. M/s. Mahaveer Enterprises (India) Limited

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

C. Dave was decided in the context of following facts. Paragraph Nos.2 to 4 of the said judgement are quoted below for ready reference: “2. Hari Ram, respondent herein, had filed a statement on 28.9.1976 giving details of the vacant land he was holding in excess of ceiling limit prescribed under the Act, as provided under Section 6

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

1,08,195/- (c) Unreconciled stock of Supari Rs. 70,99,839/- (d) Unexplained investment in cloth Rs. 5,04,000/- (e) Unexplained investment in trucks Rs. 10,50,000/- (f) Income of the assessee from 1.4.96 to 28.11.1996 Rs. 38,70,219/- (g) Unexplained investment in house property No. 133/225 Rs. 3,40,000/- 16. Assessee preferred appeal against

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s Pokarna Limited

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

c) or a Growth Centre under the Growth Centre Scheme of the Government of India. The various incentives on tax exemptions were extended under the Scheme to the developers. 16. In exercise of powers conferred by section 295 read with clause (iii) of sub-section (4) of section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Central Board

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [TDS] HYDERABAD vs. M/S GHMC ,HYDERABAD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

House, Hauz Khas, New Delhi- 110016. The property documents are not available, steps are being taken to ascertain the title docs. This address has been used by the Dahiya Brothers for all their companies. Title documents of the said property have not been made available to the Official Liquidator.” 14.1 It is contended by the Official Liquidator that in view

The commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s Lanco Kondapalli Power (P) Ltd

House, Nhava Sheva. 5. Commissioner of Customs, Office of the Commissioner of Customs (NS-1), Jawaharlal Nehru Customs House, Nhava Sheva. …Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2091 OF 2022 Balkrishna Industries Ltd, Page 108 of 198 22nd March 2024 Saurer Textile Solutions Pvt Ltd v The State of Maharashtra & Ors & Connected Writ Petitions 1-2-oswp-1494-2023-J+.docx

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

6 SCC 100), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 has no retrospective effect. The transactions disputed in the case on hand were spanning over the period 1998 to 2005 i.e. when the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 was holding the field. 26. Section 2(a) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 defines

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), HYDERABAD vs. SMT.M.VIJAYA, HYDERABAD

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Property Mgmt Office Basement, Grand Central Mall, Nana Mauva Main [2025:RJ-JP:25721] (34 of 55) [COAP-21/2016] 2. 3. 4. Road, Rajnagar Cross Road, Rajkot, Gujrat. Ved Prakash Arya s/o Satyapal Arya, Flat No. 701, Gladioli Chs, Off yari Roadversova, andheri, West Mumbai 400058 Jateen madan lal Gupta s/o roop Narayan gupta, 1, Rivera-30 Bunglows

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), HYDERABAD vs. SRI V.CHENNA KESAVA RAO

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Property Mgmt Office Basement, Grand Central Mall, Nana Mauva Main [2025:RJ-JP:25721] (34 of 55) [COAP-21/2016] 2. 3. 4. Road, Rajnagar Cross Road, Rajkot, Gujrat. Ved Prakash Arya s/o Satyapal Arya, Flat No. 701, Gladioli Chs, Off yari Roadversova, andheri, West Mumbai 400058 Jateen madan lal Gupta s/o roop Narayan gupta, 1, Rivera-30 Bunglows

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYD vs. M/S CONEXANT SYSTEMS INDIA PVT.LTD., HYD

Bench: SUREPALLI NANDA,UJJAL BHUYAN

Property Mgmt Office Basement, Grand Central Mall, Nana Mauva Main [2025:RJ-JP:25721] (34 of 55) [COAP-21/2016] 2. 3. 4. Road, Rajnagar Cross Road, Rajkot, Gujrat. Ved Prakash Arya s/o Satyapal Arya, Flat No. 701, Gladioli Chs, Off yari Roadversova, andheri, West Mumbai 400058 Jateen madan lal Gupta s/o roop Narayan gupta, 1, Rivera-30 Bunglows

THE PRL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYD vs. M/S. AMR INDIA LTD., HYD

Bench: SUREPALLI NANDA,UJJAL BHUYAN

Property Mgmt Office Basement, Grand Central Mall, Nana Mauva Main [2025:RJ-JP:25721] (34 of 55) [COAP-21/2016] 2. 3. 4. Road, Rajnagar Cross Road, Rajkot, Gujrat. Ved Prakash Arya s/o Satyapal Arya, Flat No. 701, Gladioli Chs, Off yari Roadversova, andheri, West Mumbai 400058 Jateen madan lal Gupta s/o roop Narayan gupta, 1, Rivera-30 Bunglows

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I vs. M/S. CONEXANT SYSTEMS INDIA PVT.LTD., HYD

Bench: SUREPALLI NANDA,UJJAL BHUYAN

Property Mgmt Office Basement, Grand Central Mall, Nana Mauva Main [2025:RJ-JP:25721] (34 of 55) [COAP-21/2016] 2. 3. 4. Road, Rajnagar Cross Road, Rajkot, Gujrat. Ved Prakash Arya s/o Satyapal Arya, Flat No. 701, Gladioli Chs, Off yari Roadversova, andheri, West Mumbai 400058 Jateen madan lal Gupta s/o roop Narayan gupta, 1, Rivera-30 Bunglows