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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gain received by it  during the year under consideration. 18. In  the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v.  Sakarlal   Balabhai,   69   ITR   186,   a   Division  Bench of this Court observed that avoidance  of   tax   cannot   include   every   case   of  reduction of tax liability of an assessee.  The   assessee   may   enter   into   a   transaction  which   has   the   effect   of   diminishing

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gain received by it  during the year under consideration. 18. In  the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v.  Sakarlal   Balabhai,   69   ITR   186,   a   Division  Bench of this Court observed that avoidance  of   tax   cannot   include   every   case   of  reduction of tax liability of an assessee.  The   assessee   may   enter   into   a   transaction  which   has   the   effect   of   diminishing

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gain received by it  during the year under consideration. 18. In  the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v.  Sakarlal   Balabhai,   69   ITR   186,   a   Division  Bench of this Court observed that avoidance  of   tax   cannot   include   every   case   of  reduction of tax liability of an assessee.  The   assessee   may   enter   into   a   transaction  which   has   the   effect   of   diminishing

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I vs. A.V. V. VARAPRASAD

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

69,760/-, showing the same as income from salary. He has shown income from other sources as Nil and claimed exemption from capital gains under Sections

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

capital gains‟ in their hands in their returns would not be relevant in deciding the issue whether the payment by the Assessee should be treated as „business expenditure.‟ As explained by the Madras High Court in CIT v. Sarda Binding Works 102 ITR 187 (Mad), it is the point of view of the payer which is relevant. 37. The decision

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

capital gains‟ in their hands in their returns would not be relevant in deciding the issue whether the payment by the Assessee should be treated as „business expenditure.‟ As explained by the Madras High Court in CIT v. Sarda Binding Works 102 ITR 187 (Mad), it is the point of view of the payer which is relevant. 37. The decision

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

Bench: L.NARASIMHA REDDY,T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

Capital Gains Taxes under the Development Agreements dated 24'11' 1993' This letter was written after Income Tax raids were conducted in the premises of the appellant No.2/C.V. Rao on 23.02.1996 and O3'O4'1996 This letter is a ciucial document and discussed in ' the later part of the judgment. 33. Revised plans were issued on 07.04.1997 in the name

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

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

Capital Gains Taxes under the Development Agreements dated 24'11' 1993' This letter was written after Income Tax raids were conducted in the premises of the appellant No.2/C.V. Rao on 23.02.1996 and O3'O4'1996 This letter is a ciucial document and discussed in ' the later part of the judgment. 33. Revised plans were issued on 07.04.1997 in the name

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

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

Capital Gains Taxes under the Development Agreements dated 24'11' 1993' This letter was written after Income Tax raids were conducted in the premises of the appellant No.2/C.V. Rao on 23.02.1996 and O3'O4'1996 This letter is a ciucial document and discussed in ' the later part of the judgment. 33. Revised plans were issued on 07.04.1997 in the name

The Commissioner of Income TAx-IV, vs. M/s. Mahaveer Enterprises (India) Limited

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

capital gains on transfers, to invest unaccounted money (`black money') and to avoid payment of `unearned increases' due to Development Authorities on transfer. 2. The modus operandi in such SA/GPA/WILL transactions is for the vendor or person claiming to be the owner to receive the agreed consideration, deliver possession of the property to the purchaser and execute the following documents

The Commissioner of Income Tax - III, vs. M/s. Suven Pharmaceuticals Limited,

Appeals are dismissed

capital gains; or (b) income of the nature referred to   in sub­clause (ix) of clause (24) of  section 2, and the assessee has paid the whole of the  amount of tax payable in respect of income  referred to in clause (a) or clause (b), as  the case may be, had such income been a part  of   the   total   income

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

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

Section 178 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the Chairman of the company, HVL cannot arrogate unto himself the power to cause such appointment when such power ultimately rests with the Board of Directors. The observation of the two Joint APLs that the evident performance of BCrL, the flagship company of MP Birla Group is deteriorating ever since, HVL became

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

69,336/-. This was claimed as deduction being interest from the business of banking. Out of this, an amount of Rs.6,95,66,643/- was disallowed by the assessing officer on the ground that the assessee did not obtain prior approval in respect of investments against statutory reserves as required under Section 46 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies

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

69,336/-. This was claimed as deduction being interest from the business of banking. Out of this, an amount of Rs.6,95,66,643/- was disallowed by the assessing officer on the ground that the assessee did not obtain prior approval in respect of investments against statutory reserves as required under Section 46 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies

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

69,336/-. This was claimed as deduction being interest from the business of banking. Out of this, an amount of Rs.6,95,66,643/- was disallowed by the assessing officer on the ground that the assessee did not obtain prior approval in respect of investments against statutory reserves as required under Section 46 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies

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

69,336/-. This was claimed as deduction being interest from the business of banking. Out of this, an amount of Rs.6,95,66,643/- was disallowed by the assessing officer on the ground that the assessee did not obtain prior approval in respect of investments against statutory reserves as required under Section 46 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies

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