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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

section 8(4) of the Act, the Competent Authority found that except for the property shown at serial No.2, all the lands were H.U.F. properties; that the definition of family includes husband, wife and their minor children, hence the land held by the wife is required to be clubbed together to determine the holding of the family; that the record

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. We have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and perused the record of the appeal. 8

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

8. The brief facts necessary for the appeals under consideration could be summarised as follows: Sri.C.C Joy married Smt.C.D Mini on 10.09.1989. At that time, he was running a home appliances shop. After marriage, a telephone booth and a beauty parlour were started in a portion of that shop and Smt. Mini was its licensee. As they could not bear

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 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

The Commissioner of Income Tax [Central] vs. Akula Nageswara Rao

In the result, R.C.R.Nos.405/2017, 406/2017, 407/2017, 408/2017,

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

HOUSE, THUMPAMON, PATHANAMTHITTA 689 502. *6 JACOB P.C. AGED 53 YEARS, S/O RAHELAMMA RESIDING AT KOICKAL PUTHENVEEDU, KANNAMKODE, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA -691 523 * ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS R2 TO R6 ARE BEING LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED SOLE RESPONDENT, ARE IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2022 IN I.A.NO.2/2022. BY ADVS. SRI.S.AJITH PRABHAV No Advocate SRI.C.D.ANIL C.S.MANILAL S.NIDHEESH(K/1061/2007) KUNJAPPEASOW RAINGE(K/1346/2018) THIS

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

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

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 vs. Dr. T.Ravi Kumar

The appeal is disposed of

housing project by virtue of Section 13(8) of the Act would become part of total 6 income under the Act. It was further held that in the light of aforesaid retrospective amendment of the law, the application of income for charitable purposes becomes irrelevant. It was further held that income derived from business cannot be considered as income derived

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 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

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

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

8] and Commissioner of Income Tax v Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (2)[9]. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION The main point for consideration is whether AMCs constituted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under Section 4 of the AMC Act are institutions established for advancement of the object of general public utility and, therefore, exist for charitable purpose. All other questions

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

8] and Commissioner of Income Tax v Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (2)[9]. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION The main point for consideration is whether AMCs constituted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under Section 4 of the AMC Act are institutions established for advancement of the object of general public utility and, therefore, exist for charitable purpose. All other questions

The Commissioner of Inccome Tax-III vs. Speectra Shares AND Scrips Pvt Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

property. 8. Juxtaposing the narrative with our consideration of the issue, we notice that in Malabar and Pioneer Hosiery (P.) Ltd case, the Division Bench for ascertaining a category of income, laid substantial emphasis on the relatability of income to a ITA Nos.11/2008, 12/2008, 279/2010, 282/2010, 292/2010 -20- particular source. The source of income is from a commercial asset; without

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