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

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

79(b) of Land Reforms Act? 3. Can there be a declaration that the sale deed with respect to property which has vested in the Government by virtue of Act 19 of 1996 valid? 4. Can there e a declaration when no consequential relief is prayed for in the light of Section 344 of Specific Relief Act? 37. In addition

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

housing project without acquiring 100 acres of contiguous land interest, free advances were given to the associate companies for the purposes of Assessee‟s business. 70. The Assessee‟s case appears to be supported by the decisions in SA Builders v. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) which has been followed in Hero Cycles

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

housing project without acquiring 100 acres of contiguous land interest, free advances were given to the associate companies for the purposes of Assessee‟s business. 70. The Assessee‟s case appears to be supported by the decisions in SA Builders v. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) which has been followed in Hero Cycles

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 vs. SRI METTAM PENCHALA NAIDU

Bench: This Court That The 1St Assessment Order Of The Ito Was Passed On 28.03.1988, Which Was Challenged Before The Leaned Cit (A) & The Same Was Dismissed On 28.11.1988. Against The Said Order, The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Itat, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, Which Was Dismissed On 19.01.1990. Thereafter, By Order Dated 13.12.1990 Passed In A Misc. Application, The Order Dated 19.01.1990 Was Recalled & The Matter Was Heard Afresh. Again On 10.05.1991, Learned Tribunal Decided The Matter & Allowed The Exemption To The Assessee. The Revenue Filed Writ Petition Before This Court Challenging The Rectification Order Dated 13.12.1990. This Court On 02.12.1991 Allowed The Writ Petition & Quashed The Recalling Order Dated 13.12.1990 As Well As Its Substantive Order Dated

house property and does not have any brought forward loss under the head; or (iii) “Income from other sources”, except winnings from lottery or income from race horses, [and does not have any loss under the head] be in Form [SAHAJ] (ITR-1) and be verified in the manner indicated therein:] [Provided that the provisions of this clause shall

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

Bench: This Court That The 1St Assessment Order Of The Ito Was Passed On 28.03.1988, Which Was Challenged Before The Leaned Cit (A) & The Same Was Dismissed On 28.11.1988. Against The Said Order, The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Itat, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, Which Was Dismissed On 19.01.1990. Thereafter, By Order Dated 13.12.1990 Passed In A Misc. Application, The Order Dated 19.01.1990 Was Recalled & The Matter Was Heard Afresh. Again On 10.05.1991, Learned Tribunal Decided The Matter & Allowed The Exemption To The Assessee. The Revenue Filed Writ Petition Before This Court Challenging The Rectification Order Dated 13.12.1990. This Court On 02.12.1991 Allowed The Writ Petition & Quashed The Recalling Order Dated 13.12.1990 As Well As Its Substantive Order Dated

house property and does not have any brought forward loss under the head; or (iii) “Income from other sources”, except winnings from lottery or income from race horses, [and does not have any loss under the head] be in Form [SAHAJ] (ITR-1) and be verified in the manner indicated therein:] [Provided that the provisions of this clause shall

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

house; further admitting, in page 7, that his address in the Sale Deeds is that of the daughter of the Owners. No document to show his income was produced, except a statement of his account with Federal Bank, which had no substantial balance. He also admitted that he had filed no Income Tax Returns RFA 554/15 & CON. CASES

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 Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Shri Raaj Kumar Jain

79 19.01.07 Other case properties transferred to the CBI. 80 20.01.07 Remaining case properties transferred to the CBI. 81 20.01.07 Preliminary report of FSL, Agra team regarding the recovered items between 04.01.2007-06.01.2007 is sent to the Senior Police Superintendent, Gautambudh Nagar. 82 21.01.07 Case properties are taken to FSL, Hyderabad. 24 83 22.01.07 Report of the narco analysis

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

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), vs. M/s. Ind-Bharat Power Infra Pvt. Ltd.,

In the result, appeal is allowed in part

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 80C towards LIP and house loan, totaling to Rs.1,11,513/-. These deductions have been shown for the investment made by Assessee from his total income and exempted from tax under the Income Tax Act, 1961. For the purpose of calculating amount of compensation, gross total income of deceased is to be taken into consideration minus income tax paid

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

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

Bench: L.NARASIMHA REDDY,T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

79 ts (79991 3 SCC I;-73 48 that the case set up by the party is not correct' In the present case' N.Subash as D.W.l duly entered the witness box and gave a detailed deposition on all the applicable facts in the four Suits underlying the GPA Appeals which involved identical isgues and commonality of evidence. N.Subash/D.W.

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

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

79 ts (79991 3 SCC I;-73 48 that the case set up by the party is not correct' In the present case' N.Subash as D.W.l duly entered the witness box and gave a detailed deposition on all the applicable facts in the four Suits underlying the GPA Appeals which involved identical isgues and commonality of evidence. N.Subash/D.W.

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

79 ts (79991 3 SCC I;-73 48 that the case set up by the party is not correct' In the present case' N.Subash as D.W.l duly entered the witness box and gave a detailed deposition on all the applicable facts in the four Suits underlying the GPA Appeals which involved identical isgues and commonality of evidence. N.Subash/D.W.

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. Bheema Wines

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. The case against R.C.Sabharwal is that he was found in possession of the total assets worth Rs.3,10,58,324/- for the check period beginning from 20.08.1968 till 23.08.1995. The assets which were disproportionate to his known sources of the income were Rs.2,05,63,641/-. His wife's salary during

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

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

house with a right to control and manage the affairs of such trust or society unless there is provision to the said effect to the constitution of the trust or society. Further, the prayer sought for in GA No. 3714 of 2008 and GA No. 3718 of 2008 on which order dated 23.08.2012 was passed, the prayers did not include