ANDHRA BANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD,. HYDERABAD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, HYDERABAD

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 13 confers overriding effect on the Special Court Act. It says that provisions of the Special Court Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act or in any decree or order

ANDHRA BANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, HYDERABAD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, HYDERABAD

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 13 confers overriding effect on the Special Court Act. It says that provisions of the Special Court Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act or in any decree or order

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 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 of 3rd defendant. Thus, the direct execution of the sale deed Ex.P1 is spoken by PW1 and PW6 but the legal formality of registration was not effected. 82. The features of valid contract as mentioned in Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 are offer and acceptance, legal relationship, contractual capacity, competency of the parties to enter into

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. 61. The CIT(A) reversed this finding of the AO holding that the lease of ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 28 of 36 space is a part of the Assessee‟s business and such expenditure incurred on the lease is a part of the business and such expenditure and exploitation of the stock in trade is admissible

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. 61. The CIT(A) reversed this finding of the AO holding that the lease of ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 28 of 36 space is a part of the Assessee‟s business and such expenditure incurred on the lease is a part of the business and such expenditure and exploitation of the stock in trade is admissible

Commissioner of Income tax-VI vs. M/s. Narpat Girji Constructions,

The appeal is allowed

housing quarters for Rs.65,00,00,000/- Crores (Rupees sixty five crores only). The transaction entered into between the company in liquidation and the applicant-Society was not in ordinary course of business, the encumbrance is not on - 17 - OSA No. 19 of 2015 good faith. Before initiating winding up proceedings, the statutory notice would have been issued

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

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 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

Commissioner of Income Tax-III, vs. Smt K. V.Lakshmi Savitri Devi,

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

house property. She did not file her original return for the assessment year 2003-04 but in response to a notice issued under Section 153-C of the Act, she filed a return on 23- 09-2009 admitting a taxable income of Rs.4,52,752/-. A notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act was issued to her along with

A.P.State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited vs. The Income tax Officer

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

house of Ram Pyari, Trilok Nath Aggarwal was also present there. Then she informed him as well as Trilok Nath Aggarwal that she had prepared a will. She took out the papers. After reading and correcting it in her own handwriting signed the same at marks A1 to A12. She also signed over the cuttings and over writings. She signed

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

69 years. b. Sri. Vijaya Kumar, Son of late C.V.L.Sathyakumar, Aged about 50 years. c. Sri. Raghavendra, Son of late C.V.L.Sathyakumar, Aged about 45 years. All are now residing At No.J-60, 3rd Cross, R.K.Puram, S.C.Road, Bengaluru-560 009. ...Respondents ( By Sri P.Nataraju, Advocate for Sri M.R.Balakrishna, Advocate for R-1 (a to c) This Appeal is filed under Section

M/S.VISWARUPA BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS(P)LTD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: This Court As Arising From The Impugned Order Of The Itat Read As Under:

house property. The Assessing Officer (AO) then finalized the block assessment on 29th December, 2003 determining the total undisclosed income as Rs.3,32,09,650/-. The appeal filed by Shri Banka was partly allowed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT (A)) allowing deletion of some of the additions but confirming a major portion of the additions. 6. Aggrieved

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. The Sind Coop. Urban Bank Ltd.,

The appeal of the State is allowed and the appeal of the applicants

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

HOUSE,, THAMARACHAL, KIZHAKKAMBALAM P.O., PIN-683 562,, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4 PREETHA THULASEEDHARAN PILLAI, AGED 38 YEARS, W/O. THULASEEDHARAN PILLAI,, REMYA NIVAS, KANNIMELTHERIYIL, PATTAZHI VILLAGE,, PADMANABHAPURAM, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF, ATTORNEY MR. ANTONY M.P., AGED 40 YEARS,, MANIYACHER BY ADVS.SRI.G.G.MANOJ SRI.P.M.BENZIR P.VISWANATHAN (SR.)(K/000283/1986) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 CISTPDOAM PF VESTED FPRESTS (EFL), FOREST HEAD QUARTERS, VANALAKSHMI, VAZHUTHACAUDU,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Jyothi Wines,

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

houses of the partners of one M/s.Artech Group which had close connections with the assessee-firms. One ITA. Nos.211, 226 & 366 of 2010 6 of the partners of M/s.Artech Group was also a partner in the assessee-firms. Documents were recovered in the search conducted in that other firm which related to the assessee-firms as also its partners

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

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

69) clarifies that a person who already has control over the affairs of the company can be termed as a “promoter”, (ii) the Companies Act as well as SEBI Regulations provide various obligations for the promoters and in this regard, reference was made to Sections 7(6), 35(1), 42(10) and 120(4) of the Companies

SRI PAVAN KUMAR AGARWAL vs. DY. CIT, NIZAMABAD.

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 69 of the Act an,l s:l:,mr:s thqt \r thc saitl orr vision has been duly applied lry th,: Tribunal. 'l hcrc[rrre, d c eppcal shc_ruld bc dismissed. I I I I i I I I I I 6 .-r 10. We have heard learned counscl for the partics ancl perused thc matcrials