Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Nara Constructions,

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

80- IB; (h) "long-term finance" means any loan or advance where the terms under which moneys are loaned or advanced provide for repayment along with interest thereof during a period of not less than five years;” As per the amended provisions of clause (viii), the deduction was reduced to 20% of the profits derived from eligible business. The “eligible

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI PINNAMANENI PARANDHAMAIAH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

house property". Therefore, firstly, what is the intention behind the lease and secondly what are facilities given along with the buildings and documents executed in respect of each of them is to be seen. Thirdly, it is to be found out whether it is inseparable or not. If they are inseparable and the intention is to carry on the business

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s. Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Ltd.,

house in India for himself and his family so as to own, possess and enjoy the same in his old age and visit his mother country India as and when he desires. The RC.REV. 392/2013 & 394/2013 Page 12 of 46 petitioner led the evidence that he has been paying exorbitant prices/charges for the hotel for his stay

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

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 - 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

M/s Vodafone Essar South Ltd., vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income tax,

Housing Society, Goregaon (East), Mumbai in his name.  It is further alleged that his main source of income is derived from agriculture.   However, in the year 1992­93 and in 2002, his name was included in the list of persons falling under below poverty line. It is alleged that aforesaid property is a benami transaction for the benefit of accused no.1

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 at Anand Lok was under demolition and an apartment building was to be constructed there. For those apartments, secret bookings were alleged to have been made and money was received by family members of the petitioners. The note of Respondents No. 2 & 3 there stated that 21 the petitioners did not disclose receipt of compensation in income

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-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/s. The A.P.Vardhaman(Mahila)Cooperative Urban

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

property and Rs.83,60,46,867/- as income from the business of banking. The assessee claimed deduction of business income under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act. The assessing officer, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax took up the return for scrutiny and found that the assessee had Rs.61,87,16,546/- as statutory reserve

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. The Andhra Bank Employees Co.Operative Bank Limited

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

property and Rs.83,60,46,867/- as income from the business of banking. The assessee claimed deduction of business income under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act. The assessing officer, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax took up the return for scrutiny and found that the assessee had Rs.61,87,16,546/- as statutory reserve

Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. The Agrasen Coop. Urban Bank Ltd.,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

property and Rs.83,60,46,867/- as income from the business of banking. The assessee claimed deduction of business income under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act. The assessing officer, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax took up the return for scrutiny and found that the assessee had Rs.61,87,16,546/- as statutory reserve

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S The A.P.Mahesh Coop. Urban Bank Ltd,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

property and Rs.83,60,46,867/- as income from the business of banking. The assessee claimed deduction of business income under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act. The assessing officer, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax took up the return for scrutiny and found that the assessee had Rs.61,87,16,546/- as statutory reserve

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Shri Raaj Kumar Jain

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 and brain mapping tests etc. sent to CJM, Gautambudh Nagar

DIR OF INCOME TAX [INTERNATIONAL TAXATION], HYDERABAD vs. NIMMAGADDA PRASAD, SECUNDERABAD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Property is required for personal occupation of the Appellant/Petitioner? 3) Whether there are reasons to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur in RCC.No.13/2008 Dt.26.07.2010? 11. The Rent Control Appellate Authority had considered issues 1 and 2 jointly and held both the issues against the petitioner. Issue No.3

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed

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

properties or combinations, whether by hand labor or machine. (Tara Agencies[5]). The word 'manufacture' has been defined in Halsbury's Laws of England, (3rd Ed. Vol. 29 p.23) as a manner of adapting natural material by the hands of man or by man-made devices or machinery, and as the making of an article or material by physical labour