The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Laila Impex,

Accordingly answered against the Revenue. The appeals fail and are dismissed, without

Capital gains") for— (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property ; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s Pokarna Limited

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

24 sub-section (4), the provisions of this sub- section shall have effect as if for the words “fifteen years”, the words “twenty years” had been substituted.] [(2A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the deduction in computing the total income of an undertaking providing telecommunication services, specified in clause (ii) of sub-section

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S Gulf Oil Corporation Pvt. Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

24 of 41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT (a)   the   expression   "Foreign   Institutional  Investor" shall have the meaning assigned to it  in   clause   (a)   of   the   Explanation   to  section  115AD; (b)   the   expression   "securities"   shall   have   the  meaning assigned to it in clause (h) of section 2  of   the   Securities   Contracts   (Regulation)   Act,  1956 (42 of 1956); (iii) agricultural land in India

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Jayalakshmi Chits

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

24 of 41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT (a)   the   expression   "Foreign   Institutional  Investor" shall have the meaning assigned to it  in   clause   (a)   of   the   Explanation   to  section  115AD; (b)   the   expression   "securities"   shall   have   the  meaning assigned to it in clause (h) of section 2  of   the   Securities   Contracts   (Regulation)   Act,  1956 (42 of 1956); (iii) agricultural land in India

The Commissioner of Income Tax - VI vs. M/s. Manikanta Iron AND Hardware

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

24 of 41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT (a)   the   expression   "Foreign   Institutional  Investor" shall have the meaning assigned to it  in   clause   (a)   of   the   Explanation   to  section  115AD; (b)   the   expression   "securities"   shall   have   the  meaning assigned to it in clause (h) of section 2  of   the   Securities   Contracts   (Regulation)   Act,  1956 (42 of 1956); (iii) agricultural land in India

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

24 of 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) In this group of Income Tax Tribunal Appeals under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter, the Act) the common question of law raised by the Revenue is whether a cooperative society carrying on the business of banking is entitled to claim exemption under Section 80P(2

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

24 of 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) In this group of Income Tax Tribunal Appeals under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter, the Act) the common question of law raised by the Revenue is whether a cooperative society carrying on the business of banking is entitled to claim exemption under Section 80P(2

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

24 of 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) In this group of Income Tax Tribunal Appeals under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter, the Act) the common question of law raised by the Revenue is whether a cooperative society carrying on the business of banking is entitled to claim exemption under Section 80P(2

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

24 of 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) In this group of Income Tax Tribunal Appeals under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter, the Act) the common question of law raised by the Revenue is whether a cooperative society carrying on the business of banking is entitled to claim exemption under Section 80P(2

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5 vs. M/s Vijay Textiles Limited

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gains, as an essential object for forming an AOP. However the CBDT Circular explaining the above insertion states that such insertion was only to take care of the claim of certain bodies that they did not fall within the definition of a ‘person’ for the sole reason, that they were not supposed to have any income or profits. Section

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions0 vs. Kalinga Cultural Trust

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

capital gain earned. It is urged that since, the tribunal has failed to determine the core issue with regard to colorable devise adopted by the 15 assessee, to evade tax, therefore, the matter be remitted to the tribunal for decision afresh in accordance with law. In support of aforesaid submissions, the reliance is placed on decision of Supreme Court

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5 vs. M/s. VBC Industries Limited

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

capital gain earned. It is urged that since, the tribunal has failed to determine the core issue with regard to colorable devise adopted by the 15 assessee, to evade tax, therefore, the matter be remitted to the tribunal for decision afresh in accordance with law. In support of aforesaid submissions, the reliance is placed on decision of Supreme Court

K.V.D.PRASAD RAO vs. THE JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

VI, I]uddha Bha'an. Sccuncre rahuil ..RESPONDENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUY,AN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY INCOME TAX TRTBUNAL AppEAL NO: 57 OF 2002 Appeal Under Section 260 A of the lncome Tax Act , 1961 aggrieved by the order dated 31-12-2o01 in r.T.A. No. 336 / Hyd / 99 Assessment year

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX vs. M/S V.SATAYANARAYANA

The appeal is allowed

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

Capital Territory of Delhi)16 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows : 16. On the said aspect, we would now refer to Section 20 of the Act which reads as under: ―20. Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration.—(1) Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 7 or Section 11 or clause

M/s. Canara Securities Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO,T.AMARNATH GOUD

24. The decision of the Joint APLs dated 19th July, 2019 was challenged on several grounds which had not been dealt with in the impugned order namely, that re-investigation to the extent of the estate was unwarranted; the decision (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Supriya Wines

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

vi). It has been further stated that the assessee had replied to the said show cause notice and in his reply, the assessee has specifically stated that the case of the petitioner is yet to be assessed under section 153A of the Income Tax Act and, at present, the Show Cause Notice issued for initiation of prosecution is based

The commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s Bhagyanagar Studios

The appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated above

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

vi)Whether the Ld. Tribunal has not erred in law in refusing to appreciate the mistake which it committed in recalling the order in ITA No.345/ASR/2009 on the ground that “arguments of the assessee were not considered in their proper perspective” as the same amounted to perversity and did not fell within domain of the provisions of Section 254(2

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/S.B.KRISHNA MURTHY KAKINADA AND 2 ORS

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act, but the term “royalty” as defined and covered under Art VIII A of the DTAA. 7. Before we examine the relevant clauses of agreement dated 11th May, 1987 between HCL and ADC, it would be first appropriate to examine the ambit and scope of the term „royalty‟ taxable under Article VIIIA