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

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

4 of the AMC Act, as mandated by Section 15 of the AMC Act read with Rule 27 of the Rules, is required to establish general or special market places or market yards in the notified area and provide facilities like rest house for ryots, electrification of market yard, auction-cum-weighing shed, auction platforms, internal roads, telephone booth, canteen

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

4. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the appellant assessee had filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) which was allowed, holding that the income derived by the appellant assessee from letting out of shopping space to different persons is business income. Aggrieved with the order of CIT (A) the Income Tax Department had filed an appeal being

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

4 and odd cents was excluded. Though she would say that, there was a sale agreement for this property, she does not know its details. She is not able to say anything about the agreement for purchasing that property. The total consideration for that property was Rs.3,60,000/-. Though she deposed that she has got some documents to prove

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 INCOMETAX vs. M/S V.SATAYANARAYANA

The appeal is allowed

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

house at 7 o'clock in the evening. The girl was unconscious during the day. PW 2 told her husband as to what had happened to their daughter. The police station was at a distance of 15 km. According to the testimony of PW 1 no mode of conveyance was available. The police was reported to the next day morning

Commissioner of Income Tax- IT and TP vs. M/s. Louis Berger International Inc.,

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

4 to 9 of the 2007 Rules. 16.6. The proper officer can raise doubts as to the truth or accuracy Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:27.11.2024 18:20:25 Signature Not Verified CUSAA 26/2022 & connected matters Page 50 of 137 of the declared value on ―certain reasons‖ which could include the grounds specified in sub-clauses

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s. Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

4 to 9 of the 2007 Rules. 16.6. The proper officer can raise doubts as to the truth or accuracy Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:27.11.2024 18:20:25 Signature Not Verified CUSAA 26/2022 & connected matters Page 50 of 137 of the declared value on ―certain reasons‖ which could include the grounds specified in sub-clauses

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 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. L. SURYAKANTHAM, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

73. It has consistently been held that there is always a presumption in favour of constitutionality, and a law will not be declared unconstitutional unless the case is so clear as to be free from doubt. It has been held that if the law which is passed is within the scope of the power conferred on a legislature and violates

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

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

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

73 of 171 with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA Mr. Tarunvir Singh Khehar and Ms. Gunet B. Khehar, Advocates for DA. Mr. Neraj Kumar and Mr. Kartik Garg, Advocates. + LA.AP. 137/2019 & CM APL. 384/2019 BHOP SINGH (DECEASED) THR LRS .Apelant Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Sri Laxmi Narasimha Wines,

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

73 of 171 with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA Mr. Tarunvir Singh Khehar and Ms. Gunet B. Khehar, Advocates for DA. Mr. Neraj Kumar and Mr. Kartik Garg, Advocates. + LA.AP. 137/2019 & CM APL. 384/2019 BHOP SINGH (DECEASED) THR LRS .Apelant Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA

Dr.D. Siva Sankara Rao-HUF vs. I.T.O. Ward-2, Eluru

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 4 of the LA Act. 19.4.1 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 submits that so far as concerns the testimony of PW-3, Mr. Vinod Kumar (purchaser of land), the same is to be rejected as PW-3 himself admits that he was not an income tax payee in 1988 nor did he inform about purchasing

P.V.S.Raju vs. The Addl. C.I.T.

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

Section 4 of the LA Act. 19.4.1 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 submits that so far as concerns the testimony of PW-3, Mr. Vinod Kumar (purchaser of land), the same is to be rejected as PW-3 himself admits that he was not an income tax payee in 1988 nor did he inform about purchasing

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5 vs. M/s Vijay Textiles Limited

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

property to M/s. Parkway Developments Pvt. Ltd., ie, whether such transfer was a) AT the time of MOU? b) At the time of principle agreement? c) At the time of settlement deed? 4 d) At the time of execution of conveyance deed? 17. Taking up each of these questions, in a sequential manner, first we will check whether there

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.

4 SCC 526. 2. Biswanath Ghose & Ors. v. Gobinda Ghose & Ors., (2014) 11 SCC 605 3. Pushparani S.Sundaram & Ors. v. Pauline Manomani James & Ors., (2002) 9 SCC 582 36. As far as the lack of funds is concerned, the Arbitrator has rejected the contention of the respondnets holding as under: “There is then the objection that the Claimant

Pinna Nageswara RAo, vs. Commissioner of Income tax, IV (A.P)

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

4 2009 (8) SCC 582 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 88 of 171 18.4 Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the market value for the acquired land of village, Kilokari cannot be treated differently from the adjacent land of posh colonies such as Maharani Bagh, Kalindi Colony