Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s Indur Green Power Private Limited

In the result, all the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

property of the said company whensoever derived, shall be applied solely for the promotion of the objects as at forth in its Memorandum of Association and that no portion thereof shall be paid or transferred directly or indirectly by way of dividend, bonus or otherwise by way of profit to persons who at any time are or have been members

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

Bench: L.NARASIMHA REDDY,T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

properties The Trial Court however declined the plaintiffs' prayer for mesne profits. lr 125. We are inclined to sustain the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.115 of 2006 to the extent of the conclusions arrived I at by the Trial Court save and except the issue o{ mesne profits. We are lr inclined to hold that

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

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

properties The Trial Court however declined the plaintiffs' prayer for mesne profits. lr 125. We are inclined to sustain the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.115 of 2006 to the extent of the conclusions arrived I at by the Trial Court save and except the issue o{ mesne profits. We are lr inclined to hold that

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

properties The Trial Court however declined the plaintiffs' prayer for mesne profits. lr 125. We are inclined to sustain the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.115 of 2006 to the extent of the conclusions arrived I at by the Trial Court save and except the issue o{ mesne profits. We are lr inclined to hold that

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

house of 3rd defendant. Thus, the direct execution of the sale deed Ex.P1 is spoken by PW1 and PW6 but the legal formality of registration was not effected. 82. The features of valid contract as mentioned in Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 are offer and acceptance, legal relationship, contractual capacity, competency of the parties to enter into

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.V.S.T.Industries Ltd

Appeal is allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant no.2 in the suit impugning the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 29.11.2005 whereby the trial court has decreed the suit for partition filed by the respondent no.1/plaintiff and has passed a preliminary decree declaring respondent no.1/plaintiff to be the owner of 41.50% share

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

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

Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

House hold R/o H.NO. 15- 6-215, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad. through GPA Holder Khaja Moinuddin, age 57 years, R/o Flat No.1003, Mount Nasir, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 4. Mrs. Rasheeda Parveen, Wo Khaja Yousufuddin R/o Flat NO.1OO3, Mount Nasir, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 5. Mrs. Qamarunnisa Begum lsince deceased per LRs, Respondents No. 7 to 13 hereinl 6. Khaja Badaruddin, S/o late Nizamuddin

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agrilcultural Market Committee

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

House hold R/o H.NO. 15- 6-215, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad. through GPA Holder Khaja Moinuddin, age 57 years, R/o Flat No.1003, Mount Nasir, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 4. Mrs. Rasheeda Parveen, Wo Khaja Yousufuddin R/o Flat NO.1OO3, Mount Nasir, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 5. Mrs. Qamarunnisa Begum lsince deceased per LRs, Respondents No. 7 to 13 hereinl 6. Khaja Badaruddin, S/o late Nizamuddin

The Commissioner of Income -Tax - III, vs. M/s. R.R. Finance and Projects Ltd.,

Appeal is allowed in-part

Bench: The Hon’Ble Dr. Justice H.B.Prabhakara Sastry

Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, praying to call for the entire records in O.S.No.1362/2002, on the file of the 7th Addl. City Civil Judge (CCH-19) Bangalore and to set aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.1362/2002 dated 16.01.2008 on the file of the 7th Addl. City Civil Judge

M/s. Sathavahana Ispat Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

house property. The simple case is that the rent of a past year increased retrospectively shall be the annual rent of such past year or years but not the annual rent of the year in which it is received consequent upon subsequent increase.‖ 9. This judgment was followed by the same High Court in Hope (India

Commissioner of Income Tax-V, vs. M/s.Sirveen Control Systems

Appeal is partly allowed

96 OF CPC,AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 05.08.2011 PASSED IN O.S.NO. 1838/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. THIS RFA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI V. HOSMANI J.,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T This appeal

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Mr. Gopi Chand

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19081 challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.1.2008 passed in OS No.4330/2002 by the VII Addl. City Civil 1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’ 4 Judge, Bangalore, (CCH.19)2, whereunder the suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff has been decreed directing defendant Nos.1 and 2 to jointly and severally

The Commissioner of Incometax vs. M/s. Swarna Wines

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19081 challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.1.2008 passed in OS No.4330/2002 by the VII Addl. City Civil 1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’ 4 Judge, Bangalore, (CCH.19)2, whereunder the suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff has been decreed directing defendant Nos.1 and 2 to jointly and severally

M/S.R.S.RANGADAS vs. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are disposed of, with no order as to costs

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

house in Mussoorie and, therefore, was not entitled to exemption u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961? ITA No. 405/2005 (3) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in taking the market value of the shares quoted at the stock exchange on 05.05.1998 as the basis for computing the capital gains under Section 48 of the Income

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