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. 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 III, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

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 as business

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

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 as business

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. 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

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

The appeal is allowed

74,758/- as first dividend and Rs.17,67,59,066/- as the second dividend to the secured creditors and workmen of the Company in liquidation. Put together 95% of their admitted amounts were paid by the Official Liquidator by disposing of the properties of the Company in liquidation. Apart from that, under the order

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

Smt.Sudia Indira vs. The Income Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal from order stand dismissed

74,080/­ is to be paid by the Party of the First  Part to the Second Part at the time of executing Sale Deed. And now  there is no dispute about consideration of the land between the parties.  (3) The time limit of the said Satakhat i.e. the Contract of Sale has  been fixed for 4(four) months. However

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

house property No. 133/225 Rs. 3,40,000/- 16. Assessee preferred appeal against aforesaid order of assessment which has been partly allowed by Tribunal vide impugned judgment. Both parties have filed respective appeals to the extent order of Tribunal is against them. 17. Tribunal has considered various issues of Assessee and returned findings, in brief, as under:- (a) Warrant

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

Bench: Adverting To The Facts Of The Case It Is Beneficial To Mention Here That No Affidavit Had Been Filed On Behalf Of The State (Present Appellant In Both The Appeals) In Either Of The Two Writ Petitions. Learned Counsel Appearing For The State Before The Hon’Ble Single Judge Had Agreed For Disposal Of The Two Writ Petitions Without Affidavits Being Filed On The Ground That Arguments Have To Be Advanced On Question Of Law Only. 3. A Compendium Of Facts Relevant For Disposal Of These Appeals Is As Follows:

Section 23 of the Companies Act, 1956. 12. Incorporation of an organisation by registration was presented in 1844 and the precept of limited liability of an organisation followed in 1855. In this manner in 1897 in Salomon Vs. Salomon & Company (1897 A.C.22), the House of Lords influenced these establishments and solidified into English law the twin ideas of limited liability

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M.G.S. Kamal Regular First Appeal No.294 Of 2012 (Par) C/W Regular First Appeal No.196 Of 2012 Regular First Appeal No.347 Of 2014

HOUSE", GAREBHOVIPALYA, 7ST MILE HOSUR ROAD BANGALORE-560 068. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VISHWANATHA K.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT INDRAMMA W/O RAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS GARVEBHAVIPALYA BEGUR HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 068. 2. SMT. RADHAMMA W/O GOPAL REDDY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/A GARVEBHAVIPALYA BEGUR HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 068. 3. N R GUPTA

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- IT and TP vs. M/s. Louis Berger International Inc.,

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Section 18 and explained its significance in the following words: ―22. The significance of Section 18 of the Act can be understood in the light of the above provisions. Section 18 provides for provisional assessment of duty in cases specified in sub-section (1) of the section. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) deals with cases where the importer

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Section 18 and explained its significance in the following words: ―22. The significance of Section 18 of the Act can be understood in the light of the above provisions. Section 18 provides for provisional assessment of duty in cases specified in sub-section (1) of the section. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) deals with cases where the importer

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Delco Remy Electricals (India) Ltd

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed

Bench: This Court. This Court Passed An Order Directing The Advocate-Receiver To Prepare A Balance Sheet Of The Corporation First Of All & Directing The Accused To Conduct The Business In His Firm With The Concurrence & Supervision Of The Advocate-Receiver Until The Suit Is Disposed Of & Further Directing The Accused To Shift The Business To Any Of The Premises Acceptable To The Other Partners Of The Corporation. While So, The Petitioner Came To Know That The Accused Had Taken Away The Cash From The Borrowers & Hire Purchase Agreement Holders Of The Corporation Without Remitting The Cash To The Bank Account On 18.4.1998. He Also Addressed A Letter To The Advocate-Receiver, For

property, accounts, deposits and collection of installments belonging to Sri Padmalaya Finance Corporation. It is alleged that the respondent- accused shifted the Corporation to his own house and is operating the finance business from his house and he kept the account books in his house and he has not allowed other partners to see the accounts. As such, L.W.1-revision petitioner

The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) vs. Madhu Enterprises

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

74 of 1956). The aforesaid amendments were initially given retrospective effect with effect from 01.04.2015. (ii) Amendment No.2 In Section-18 of the JVAT Act, a new clause was inserted vide same gazette notification dated 23.09.2015 which reads as under:- f) In the existing sub-section (8), after the clause ( xvii), a new clause (xviii) , shall be added

S.l. Shiva Raj vs. Commissioner of Income Tax,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

74 of 1956). The aforesaid amendments were initially given retrospective effect with effect from 01.04.2015. (ii) Amendment No.2 In Section-18 of the JVAT Act, a new clause was inserted vide same gazette notification dated 23.09.2015 which reads as under:- f) In the existing sub-section (8), after the clause ( xvii), a new clause (xviii) , shall be added