Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

house for traders (para 35 of Sreenivasa Traders). Section 12 of the AMC Act read with Rule 74 of the Rules empower the market committee to levy and collect fees on any notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock purchased or sold in the market at the rate as specified in the bye-laws of the AMC made

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

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

house for traders (para 35 of Sreenivasa Traders). Section 12 of the AMC Act read with Rule 74 of the Rules empower the market committee to levy and collect fees on any notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock purchased or sold in the market at the rate as specified in the bye-laws of the AMC made

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

Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, as under: “Sale” defined.—‘‘Sale” is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part- paid and part-promised. Sale how made.—Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion

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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

property. A lease can be validly transferred only under a registered Assignment of Lease. It is time that an end is put to the pernicious practice of SA/GPA/WILL transactions known as GPA sales.” Page 50 of 76 C/LPA/94/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2021 RAVJIBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL SINCE DECD. THR'HEIRS V/s ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY U.L.C. 26. That

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

Sections 36 (1) (iii) of the Act are met, deduction of interest cannot be denied merely because the Assessee was a cash rich company having enough resources of its own. 68. It is pointed out that in the earlier years Gopal Das Bhawan was still under construction and the interest was capitalised only up to the stage of completion

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

Sections 36 (1) (iii) of the Act are met, deduction of interest cannot be denied merely because the Assessee was a cash rich company having enough resources of its own. 68. It is pointed out that in the earlier years Gopal Das Bhawan was still under construction and the interest was capitalised only up to the stage of completion

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.

house to facilitate furtherance of this Agreement but this would be done only after the full amount of Rs. Fifty Lacs interest free has been deposited with them. The irrevocable licence, being for consideration, so granted shall in no manner be revoked and/revocable by the owners till the covenants of this deed remain in force.” 47. The learned senior counsel

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

Vidyananda Educational Society vs. The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Exemptions)II

Bench: The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court Dated : 12.08.2022 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice P.Velmurugan A.S. (Md) No.152 Of 2013 & Cross. Obj(Md)No.23 Of 2022 A.S(Md)No.152 Of 2013 The Special Tahsildar (La) Adi-Dravidar Welfare Periyakulam, Theni District. ... Appellant/Referring Officer Vs. Thiru.Manikandan (Died) 2.Mrs.Sornam 3.Mrs.Kaleeswari 4.Sivakumar 5.M.Kohiladevi ... Respondents/ Claimants Nos.2 To 5 Prayer: Appeal Suit Filed Under Section 54 Of The Land Acquisition Act, To Set Aside The Judgment & Decree, Dated 20.12.2006 Made In L.A.O.P.No. 11 Of 1996, On The File Of The Land Acquisition Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court-Cum-Fast Track No.4, Periyakulam. _________ Page 1 Of 15 Https://Www.Mhc.Tn.Gov.In/Judis

section 4(1), dated 29.09.1994 and based on the permission granted by the Government, dated 20.12.1994, the District Collector has fixed an award at Rs.99,173/- for 3 acre 13 cents. Since the land owner did not agree to the amount determined by the District Collector, Madurai, the Special Tahsildar (LAADW), Periyakulam referred the matter to the land acquisition Tribunal

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

Bench: L.NARASIMHA REDDY,T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, where the Court specifically found that the thumb impression was smudged and vague and that the eourt should hence not speculate by lcasuaf perusal. In the present case, however, the Trial Court compareq the signature of C'V' Rao with several other admitted signatures wh'ich were on record' The comparison- was also

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

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, where the Court specifically found that the thumb impression was smudged and vague and that the eourt should hence not speculate by lcasuaf perusal. In the present case, however, the Trial Court compareq the signature of C'V' Rao with several other admitted signatures wh'ich were on record' The comparison- was also

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

73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, where the Court specifically found that the thumb impression was smudged and vague and that the eourt should hence not speculate by lcasuaf perusal. In the present case, however, the Trial Court compareq the signature of C'V' Rao with several other admitted signatures wh'ich were on record' The comparison- was also

Shri Maneklal Agarwal vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed and

Bench: A RAMALINGESWARA RAO,DILIP B. BHOSALE

Section 73 of the Contract Act, 1872 is of damages, and, the Specific Relief Act, 1963 only provides the alternative discretionary remedy that instead of damages, the contract in fact should be specifically enforced. Thus for breach of contract the remedy of damages is always there and it is not that the buyer is remediless. However, for getting specific relief

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Section 143(2) of the Act was issued. The assessee, in response to the aforesaid notice, submitted all the details. The Assessing Authority, by an order dated 26.02.2013, inter alia held that the assessee had rented out a part of the building to M/s. Brigade Foundation and even though no rental income has been admitted but the building has been

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 PRL COMMR OF INCOME TAX - 7, HYDERABAD vs. DECCAN GRAMEENA BANK, HYDERABAD

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

house property and agricultural land need not be deducted merely because properties have been bequeathed to the dependents. The compensation towards loss of managerial skills can be awarded, and explained the concept of just compensation at para Nos.11 and 12, which reads as under: "11. At the outset, it is pertinent to reiterate the concept of 'just' compensation under Section

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

Section 32A of the Registration Act and Rule 72A of the Rules, which make it incumbent on the Registering Officer to call for and examine one of the identity cards as enumerated in the said Rule, go a long way to demonstrate the fraud involved, as has been declared by this Court in Joseph George v. State of Kerala

M/s. PLL-Suncon Joint Venture vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

house bearing No. B-5/13, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi and the plot, where ultimately Kamal Cinema was constructed. 52. It was urged that the admitted case in arbitration, as well as, in. the impugned judgement was that late O.P. Kapoor, constituted a firm in the name of Kapoor & Sons in which he made all his sisters, children, brothers