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

transfer to the reserve fund a sum equivalent not less than 20% of such profit. Further, under Section 18 of the BR Act, every banking company, not being a scheduled bank, shall maintain cash reserve with itself or by way of balance in a current account with the RBI. Such cash reserve shall be equivalent to at least

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

transfer to the reserve fund a sum equivalent not less than 20% of such profit. Further, under Section 18 of the BR Act, every banking company, not being a scheduled bank, shall maintain cash reserve with itself or by way of balance in a current account with the RBI. Such cash reserve shall be equivalent to at least

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

transfer to the reserve fund a sum equivalent not less than 20% of such profit. Further, under Section 18 of the BR Act, every banking company, not being a scheduled bank, shall maintain cash reserve with itself or by way of balance in a current account with the RBI. Such cash reserve shall be equivalent to at least

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

transfer to the reserve fund a sum equivalent not less than 20% of such profit. Further, under Section 18 of the BR Act, every banking company, not being a scheduled bank, shall maintain cash reserve with itself or by way of balance in a current account with the RBI. Such cash reserve shall be equivalent to at least

The Commisioner of Income TAx-1 vs. Divya Shakti Granites Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

deposition of PW.1. We hasten to add that the second Agreement at Ex.P4 is admitted in the pleadings of the parties and in their evidence as well. There is no dispute that all these Exhibits relate to suit property only. The signatures appearing on Ex.P2, Ex.P3 & Ex.P5 are specifically admitted by DW.1 who is none other than the husband

Smt.Sudia Indira vs. The Income Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal from order stand dismissed

price of  Rs.47,76,920/­   (   in   words   rupees   forty   seven   lacs   and   seventy   six  thousand and nine hundred twenty rupees only).Therefore, the Party of  the First Part has paid the amount of Rs.300,000/­ ( in words rupees  three laces only) to the Party of the Second Party as per the following  details. Sr. Details Date Check No. Amount

The Commissioner of Income Tax-V vs. The Armed Forces Officers Co.Op Housing Society Ltd

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

cash has been received and cheque of Rs.5 lacs has been received. Cheque no 135122. The aforesaid agreement is for a period of three months Stamp signed Ombir” 10. It is not in dispute that these two documents which the defendants call as receipts are in fact signed by all the four defendants, with one receipt being signed

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

transferring 3.13 acres forming part of plaint B schedule properties by way of sale to the third defendant. The said sale deed was also executed on the strength of the power of attorney executed by the second plaintiff, which was not liable to be acted upon. All the aforesaid three Sale Deeds created by the first defendant are fraudulent

The Commissioner of Income -Tax - III, vs. Shri Taher Ali

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

price paid or promised, or of money, a share 57 / 79 CRA-322-08gr of crops, service or any other thing of value to be rendered periodically or on specified occasions to the transferor by the transferee, who accepts the transfer on such terms. Relying upon this judgment as also Section 105 of T.P. Act he submitted that leave

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.

cash consideration of Rs. 3,71,000. The performance of these obligations by the appellant is dependent upon his personal qualifications and volition. 14. If the court should decree the suit as prayed by the appellant (the detailed prayer is extracted in para 5 above) and direct specific performance of the “collaboration agreement” by the respondents, it will

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. M/S GOLDEN STAR FACILITIES AND SERVICES PVT LTD., HYD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

deposits in the area concerned: Provided that a mining lease may be granted upon the filing of a mining plan in accordance with a system established by the State Government for preparation, certification, and monitoring of such plan, with the approval of the Central Government.” 101. The proviso to Section 5(1) is relevant since it contains a further restriction

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Hycons Infrastructure (India) Ltd.

The appeals are dismissed

deposited Rs. 2.00 crores during investigation. 39. M/S Sharp Menthol India Limited, Delhi New Delhi 25.00 Clearanc e of raw material (Crude Mentha Oil) without manufacturing excisable goods and b y misdeclaring it as finished goods (Deterpinated/ fractionated Mentha Oil) and wrongly claiming benefit of area based exemption and irregularly passing on a Ce nvat credit to the purchaser. Goods

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD vs. M/S. ANDHRA PRADESH PAPER MILLS, HYDERABAD

Bench: The Trial Court. 4. The Brief Averments Of The Plaint, In O.S. No.25 Of 2002, Are As Under:

price. For determining his willingness to perform his part of the contract, the conduct has to be properly scrutinised. There is no documentary proof that the plaintiff had ever funds to pay the balance of consideration. Assuming that he had the funds, he has to prove his willingness to perform his part of the contract. According to the terms

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, HYD vs. M/S. SUJANA METALS LTD, HYD

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

cash or kind, under an agreement for not carrying out any activity in relation to any business or not sharing any know-how, patent etc. ITA 549/2011 Page 6 of 16 would be treated as business income since the assessee had received the amount for carrying out any activity in relation to the business of the assessee as publication

Shri Maneklal Agarwal vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed and

Bench: A RAMALINGESWARA RAO,DILIP B. BHOSALE

transfer. After whole of the sale consideration is received by proposed vendors, the proposed vendees would be competent to sell these plots and the proposed vendors will have no objection to the same. (Emphasis supplied on altered portion) 18. For determining the issue raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, the purport of clauses

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

price of the jewellery stolen in a robbery or a burglary was therefore expenditure for the purpose of the business. There can be no doubt that the expenditure was wholly and exclusively in the interest of the business. The expenditure was laid out for no other purpose.” 33. Applying the law explained by the Supreme Court in the above decisions

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

price of the jewellery stolen in a robbery or a burglary was therefore expenditure for the purpose of the business. There can be no doubt that the expenditure was wholly and exclusively in the interest of the business. The expenditure was laid out for no other purpose.” 33. Applying the law explained by the Supreme Court in the above decisions

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/s Padmapriya Real Estates AND Financiers

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment passed by

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

cash amount of Rs. 13465/- was seized at the time of raid in the house of the appellant. The total 49.700gm golden ornaments amounting to Rs. 20,622/- was also considered as expenses of the appellant. The total Rs. 873gm silver ornaments amounting Rs. 5900/- was also considered to be the expenditure of the appellant. The luxury items worth