The Commissioner of Income Tax III, vs. Sri Ravi Sanghi

The appeal is allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 269UA(f)(i) of the Act. Therefore, the income is question is correctly assessed assessing officer and upheld by the tribunal treating it as income from house property. Discussion and finding: 7

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/s. Murala Venkateswara Rao AND others

Appeal is dismissed,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

properties M.Os.1 to 7. During the cross-examination of P.W1, Exs.DI and 7. D2, through P.W5, Exs.D3 and D4, through P.W6, Exs.DS and D6 and through P.W8, Exs.D7 and D8 were marked. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused officer was examined under Section 313 CrPC to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

7) is liable to be upheld. VII. 'H' schedule property (item 15 in O.P No.559 of 2006) in O.P No.775 of 2006 74. This property is extending 2.200 cents in Kaduppassery village in the joint name of Sri.Joy and Smt.Mini. The total consideration shown is Rs.5,500/-. It was purchased for laying pipelines and also as a pathway

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

7 of 22 Official Liquidator is in custody of certain properties and assets of the Respondent Company and Vigneshwara Developwell Pvt. Ltd. It has also been stated therein that the Official Liquidator has had these properties valued and has submitted the valuation report thereto earlier. Learned Counsel has contended that the official valuer has submitted his report

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. M/S NMDC LIMITED

In the result, this Appeal Suit is partly allowed by modifying the

Bench: The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court Reserved On : 19.03.2024 Delivered On : 18.06.2024 Coram The Hon'Ble Mrs.Justice L.Victoria Gowri A.S.(Md)No.110 Of 2015 1.S.Govindasamy 2.S.Rajaraman 3.S.Kalaiselvan ... Appellants

Section 8 of Indian Succession Act, 1956. Thus, categorically contending that the judgment of the learned Trial Court need to be modified with respect to the property in item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and 11th item, that is the temple property and all the other reliefs as granted by the learned Trial Court is absolutely valid

M/s The Eluru Co-operative House Mortgage Society Limited vs. Income Tax Officwer

The appeal is allowed

HOUSE NO. 261, 1ST FLOOR Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - MFA No.399 of 2017 7TH "B" MAIN, 1ST STAGE HEBBAL, DEVARAJA MOHALLA MYSORE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ABUBACKER SHAFI, ADV., FOR R1 V/O DTD:21.1.2022 NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W) - - - THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 19(1) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT

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

Bench: The Learned

house property bearing the address E- 27, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi [the new asset]. 5. On 17.12.2012, a search and seizure operation was carried out under Section 132 of the Act on persons constituting the FIITJEE Group. The Assessee was also one of the persons searched. Thereafter, the AO issued a notice dated 13.08.2013 under Section 153A

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

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

property held under trust wholly or partly for charitable or religious purposes shall not be included in the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt of the income. A market committee, constituted under Section 4 of the AMC Act, as mandated by Section 15 of the AMC Act read with Rule 27 of the Rules

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

property held under trust wholly or partly for charitable or religious purposes shall not be included in the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt of the income. A market committee, constituted under Section 4 of the AMC Act, as mandated by Section 15 of the AMC Act read with Rule 27 of the Rules

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 LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I

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

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Sri N.Sai Baba Naidu

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

house property” as mandated by Section 22 of the Act. The relevant portions of the lease documents were read out to us to drive home the point. We do not think that anything turns on the fact as to at whose instance the machinery, plant or furniture were installed in the leased premises. The real test which has been applied

SMT. SHANTHA VIDYASAGAR ANNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2) HYDERABAD

In the result, the orders dated 09

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

house propery. 5. The assessing offrcer by arr order d,ated 21.O2.2OO2 inter atia held that the clevelopment agreement dated 04.05.1,196 is a transfer within the meaning of Section 2$7) of the Act. The assessing officer firrther held that the assessee is not eetitled to benefit of Section 54F of the Act. The assessing officer, therefore, determined

The Commissioner of Income Tax-V vs. M/s.Sri Somnath Wood Industries

In the result, revision application succeeds

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

house property. She, therefore, inducted the tenant (a partnership firm) in the suit premises, at a monthly rent. On lease period having come to an end, Minakshi surrendered possession, factually and constructively as well, of the entire leased property to the landlord. 4. A son of the landlord is a practicing advocate. He practices on civil and criminal side

Commissioner of Income Taxd vs. M/sA.,Venjkatarao AND Others

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

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

houses are not really the objects, but were clauses stipulating the powers of the trustees. Having thus made a distinction between the objects and powers, the CIT (Appeals) proceeded to examine Section 11(4A) vis-à- vis Section 11(4) of the Act. He held that the amended provisions of Section 11(4A) would apply from the assessment year

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.V.S.T.Industries Ltd

Appeal is allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 would be HUF in his hand vis-a-vis his own sons. If that be the position then the property which developed upon the father of the respondent in the instant case on the demise of his grandfather could not be said to be HUF property. If that is so, then

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s. Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Ltd.,

properties which are thus rented out. Whether the benefit of Section 14 should be extended to such tenants was considered by this Court in Ranjit Kumar Chopra Vs. Virinder Kohsla 155 (2008) DLT 658 wherein this Court held: “6. This case is a glaring example as to how the tenant, who is an industrialist, though does not need the premises