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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

long   as   the   Revenue  could   not   doubt   the   sale   price   of   the  shares, it would not be open for the Revenue  to contend that the assessee had shown loss  which   it   did   not   really   suffer.   In   the  present case, it is not even the case of the  Revenue   that   shares   were   sold   at   a   price  lower than the market rate

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

long   as   the   Revenue  could   not   doubt   the   sale   price   of   the  shares, it would not be open for the Revenue  to contend that the assessee had shown loss  which   it   did   not   really   suffer.   In   the  present case, it is not even the case of the  Revenue   that   shares   were   sold   at   a   price  lower than the market rate

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

long   as   the   Revenue  could   not   doubt   the   sale   price   of   the  shares, it would not be open for the Revenue  to contend that the assessee had shown loss  which   it   did   not   really   suffer.   In   the  present case, it is not even the case of the  Revenue   that   shares   were   sold   at   a   price  lower than the market rate

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

long tcnn capital gains. FIe funher held that nott-ithsurnding tlic lock-irrperiod and the pledge of shares, those mtst br' regaftlcd ls li.rving been sold or trarsferred within the rreaning of Section 2('17) of rlre Act as the entire consideration 5 \\?s rtccived by the xsessee and the co-promoters r'r,ith share certiliciltes Lrruig clelivered

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M.Venkata Krishna Mohan

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gained under the second license agreement and without any payment whatsoever, the word “HILTON” was used. Thus, he submits that the ITAT and AO were right in holding that the expenditure is a capital expenditure and the deduction is not liable to be allowed. Analysis and Findings Capital expenditure and Revenue expenditure - Tests 16. There is exhaustive case

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, vs. Sri Prem Chand

price may not amount to manufacture, as even after the processing, the commodity commercially known for marketing remains the same viz. milk and the subject of tax has also been identified as one commodity viz.'milk' for tax also which is one of the relevant factor for determination whether a commercially distinct commodity will come into market by the dint

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), vs. M/s. Vipanchi Chit Fund Ltd.,

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

capital gain taken by the Assessing Officer?” 3. Insofar as the first proposed question is concerned, we find that certain properties were purchased between 08.02.2005 and 25.08.2005. The total purchase price of these properties, which were situated in village Kapashera, came to ` 1,06,58,000/-. This land was sold in its entirety to one A.B. Tower Private Limited

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

long as the lien remains with MSCo the said company retains control over the deputationist‟s terms and employment. The concept of a service PE finds place in the UN Convention. It is constituted if the multinational enterprise renders services through its employees in India provided the services are rendered for a specified period. In this case, it extends

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

capital gains tax, etc., the official figure should be lesser. In a sense, to that extent, it is a case of tax avoidance which is culpable both legally and morally. One cannot gainfully argue that it is a case of tax planning, intent being corrupt. However, that has been done at the instance of the 1st defendant, at whose hands

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

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

gain within Article 13 rather than royalties within Article 12. That follows from the fact that where the ownership of rights has been alienated, the consideration cannot be for the use of the rights. The essential character of the transaction as an alienation cannot be altered by the form of the consideration, the ITA Nos. 93/2002 & 120/2008 Page

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

terms, if a cooperative society is engaged in carrying on the business of banking the amount earned from any one or more such activities in relation to the business of banking can be claimed as deduction. The word ‘attributable’ was considered by the Supreme Court in Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd v CIT[9] holding that, “the expression ‘attributable

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

terms, if a cooperative society is engaged in carrying on the business of banking the amount earned from any one or more such activities in relation to the business of banking can be claimed as deduction. The word ‘attributable’ was considered by the Supreme Court in Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd v CIT[9] holding that, “the expression ‘attributable

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

terms, if a cooperative society is engaged in carrying on the business of banking the amount earned from any one or more such activities in relation to the business of banking can be claimed as deduction. The word ‘attributable’ was considered by the Supreme Court in Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd v CIT[9] holding that, “the expression ‘attributable

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

terms, if a cooperative society is engaged in carrying on the business of banking the amount earned from any one or more such activities in relation to the business of banking can be claimed as deduction. The word ‘attributable’ was considered by the Supreme Court in Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd v CIT[9] holding that, “the expression ‘attributable

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. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

terms of the completion certificate issued by the NDMC, the LGF was sanctioned as „storage.‟ It was for this reason that the buyers lost interest. The Assessee then decided to return the advance received and also compensate the buyers since the buyers‟ funds had remained with the Assessee for some time. The Assessee had sought to explain that this compensation

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

terms of the completion certificate issued by the NDMC, the LGF was sanctioned as „storage.‟ It was for this reason that the buyers lost interest. The Assessee then decided to return the advance received and also compensate the buyers since the buyers‟ funds had remained with the Assessee for some time. The Assessee had sought to explain that this compensation

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), vs. M/s Country Club Inda Limited

long period and had rendered services for Nortel India for a period of more than 30 days in a fiscal year and the Assessee had reimbursed large amount of expenses incurred by Nortel India on these expatriate employees. ITA 666/2014 & Ors. Page 13 of 57 17. According to the AO, the Assessee was ―a shadow company of Nortel Group