PR COMMR OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. K RAVINDER REDDY, HYDERABAD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

2)(l). We find no infirmity in the ruling of ARR on this aspect. In the above situation, MSCo is rendering services through its employees to MSAS. Therefore, the Department is right in its contention that under the above situation there exists a service PE in India ITA 621/2017 & connected matters Page 54 of 85 (MSAS). Accordingly, the civil appeal

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

Bench: L.NARASIMHA REDDY,T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

Capital Gains Tax and that the defendants are trying to take advantage of these documents for effecting fraudulent transfers- The ,Trial Court concluded that considerationdidnotpassundertheDevelopmentAgreementsandthat the Development Agreements were hence proved to be sham documents' TheTrialCourtalsoconcludedthatthesuitpropertieswereleasedorrtto i third parties under the registered Sale Deeds and that mesne profits cannot be granted to the plaintiffs pending demarcation of the shares

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

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

Capital Gains Tax and that the defendants are trying to take advantage of these documents for effecting fraudulent transfers- The ,Trial Court concluded that considerationdidnotpassundertheDevelopmentAgreementsandthat the Development Agreements were hence proved to be sham documents' TheTrialCourtalsoconcludedthatthesuitpropertieswereleasedorrtto i third parties under the registered Sale Deeds and that mesne profits cannot be granted to the plaintiffs pending demarcation of the shares

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

Capital Gains Tax and that the defendants are trying to take advantage of these documents for effecting fraudulent transfers- The ,Trial Court concluded that considerationdidnotpassundertheDevelopmentAgreementsandthat the Development Agreements were hence proved to be sham documents' TheTrialCourtalsoconcludedthatthesuitpropertieswereleasedorrtto i third parties under the registered Sale Deeds and that mesne profits cannot be granted to the plaintiffs pending demarcation of the shares

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Ascend Telecom Infrastructure Private Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

127 [SC], by which Date of Judgment 14-08-2018 I.T.A.No.346/2015 Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s Academy of Liberal Education 4/21 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the view taken by the Bombay High Court in ‘Commissioner of Income Tax v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS)’ [2003] 131 Taxman 386 [Bom.]. The relevant portion

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

Capital) Appeal No. 1475 of 2009 corresponding to Reference No. 3 of 2009, by a co-ordinate bench of this Court on 11th September, 2009. The judgment of this Court in 'XYZ' has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. (s). 2227 of 2010, decided on 15.2.2011, with summary dismissal of appeal. 15. Separate and distinct trials

M/s Durga Granites, vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1,

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

2. The Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Jharkhand Mantralaya (Project Building), PO. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand), 3. The Director, Mines Directorate, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Yojna 2025:JHHC:29619-DB 52 Bhawan, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi-8334002 (Jharkhand), ........... Respondents. ----- With