Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

capital has been provided by the government under Section 23(1) and the Government is only paid interest thereon under Section 28(1) just as interest would be paid on any money due as a debt. That the activity of the respondent Corporation is not carried on with the object of making profit is made abundantly clear by the provisions

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

In the result, this Cr.M.P

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with a prayer to quash/set aside the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 10.11.2016 passed by the learned Special Sub-Judge-VII, Economic Offence, Ranchi in Complaint Case No.08 of 2016/Eco.Off. Case No.8 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 276C (1), 277 and 278E of the Income

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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

482 (SC). 29. It is submitted that ITAT erred in attributing as high as 35% of the profits to the alleged sales function performed in India. As submitted earlier, research and development, design, fabrication and manufacture of equipments all took place outside India. It is also undisputed that title to the goods passes of the Indian customers outside India