THE PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. L SURYAKANTHAM, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

JUSTICE. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2010-11. The appeal was admitted

M/S VAIBHAV vs. JOINT COMM. OF INCOME TAX RANGE 3 HYD

Appeal is allowed and the judgments and decrees passed by the

Bench: The Learned Trial Court) Was Allowed & The Judgment & Decree Dated 12.12.2000, Passed By Learned Senior Sub Judge, Kullu Was Set-Aside. (Parties Shall Hereinafter Be Referred To In

Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Appellant : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Varun Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate for respondents No.1(b) to 1(e). Rakesh Kainthla, Judge (Oral) The present appeal is directed against the judgment & decree dated 5.11.2001, passed by learned District Judge, Kullu, H.P., vide

The Commissioner of income Tax-III, vs. M/S Raj Breeders and Hatcheries [Pvt.] Ltd.,

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Justice B. S. Walia, Judge Appearing counsel: For Petitioner/appellant(s) : Mr.Virender Bhat, Advocate For respondent (s) : Mr. K.D. S. Kotwal, Advocate i/ Whether to be reported in Yes/No Press/Media? ii/ Whether to be reported in Yes/No Digest/Journal? Per Alok Aradhe-J This appeal under section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 was admitted by a Bench of this Court

Vodafone Idea Limited vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) Heard the learned counsel Sri Raviraj Y.V along with learned counsel Sri M.Dilip, for appellants/Revenue. 2. The Revenue is in appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 11.3.2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ Bench, Bengaluru (for short, ‘Appellate Authority

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. The present statutory appeals, under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) are directed against the order dated 27.01.2017 (hereafter “impugned order”) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter “ITAT”) in ITA No. 67/DEL/2011 for the AY 2001-2002 whereby the ITAT held that the GE Energy Parts Inc. (hereafter

M\S.CHENNAKESAVA VIJAYAWADA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VIJAYAWAD

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI) The appellant, in the present Tax Appeal, has challenged the Order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, TAXAP/33/2000 2/27 JUDGMENT Rajkot [“Tribunal” for short] dated 28th February 2000 passed in ITA No. 193/Rjt/1999 for A.Y 1998-99. This Court, while admitting the appeal, has framed following question as substantial question of law : “Whether the appellant

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax vs. D.L.V. Sridhar

Bench: D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL): Present appeal under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act" for short) in the case of M/s. Cincom Systems India Pvt. Ltd. is directed against the order dated 16th June, 2017 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short) and pertains to the assessment year

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Smt. Raj Kumari

Accordingly are partly allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

natural justice; that its findings are based on no evidence, or are otherwise perverse, or that there was an error of law apparent on the face of the record. The vital rights of the parties would now be determined by the Divisional Commissioner, who will not be amenable to the High Court’s superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution

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

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO SANJIV KHANNA, J.: HCL Infosystems Limited, formerly known as HCL Limited, a representative assessee of Apollo Domain Computers, GmbH Germany, has filed these two appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) pertaining to Assessment Years 1989-90 and 1990-91. 2. By order dated 9th October, 2002, ITA No. 93/2002

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s. GJ Trading Pvt Ltd

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR J U D G M E N T YASHWANT VARMA, J. (Oral) 1. We had taken note of the principal issues which were sought to be canvassed on these appeals and which we had an occasion to notice in some detail in our order of 06 August 2024 and 11 September 2024. The following three principal

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s.Viskha Container Terminal Private Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA ITA NO.439/2018 BETWEEN: 1. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-1 TAX-7, BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-16(3) BANGALORE …APPELLANTS (BY SRI.SANMATHI E.I., ADV.) AND: M/S.QUANTECH GLOBAL SERVICES LTD., (SINCE MERGED WITH WIPRO LTD.,) DODDAKANNELLI, SARJAPUR ROAD BENGALURU AAACQ0681N … RESPONDENT (BY SRI.S.GANESH, SR. ADV., FOR SRI.SANDEEP HUILGOL, ADV.) THIS

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

justice and equity. These I.T.As. coming on for hearing, this day, N.Kumar J., delivered the following: JUDGMENT All these appeals are taken up for consideration together as the common question of law is involved and therefore, they are disposed of by this common order. However, for proper appreciation of the question of law involved, the facts in ITA No.374/2011

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Chirla Rama Reddy, Contract

Appeal is dismissed with costs

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice N.K.Sudhindrarao R.S.A.No.70/2007

JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO R.S.A.No.70/2007 BETWEEN: MRS. MARY JOYCE POONACHA W/O MR. M.A.POONACHA MAJOR, RESIDING AT No.111, GARDEN HOUSE, PRS LAYOUT, BANASAWADI BANGALORE – 560 047. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S. K.T.PLANTATIONS PVT.LTD., AT No.112, RICHMOND TOWERS No.12, RICHMOND ROAD BANGALORE – 560 025. 2. MR. R. DEVDAS FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN MAJOR

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGMENT Prathiba M. Singh J., The short question arising in the present appeal is – Whether the payment of Rs.1 Crore for exclusive use of the trade mark “HILTON” is to be treated as capital expenditure or revenue expenditure? 2. M/s. Hilton Roulands Ltd. (hereinafter „appellant‟) entered into Trade Mark license agreement dated 27th January, 1993 (hereinafter

The Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax-4, vs. M/s. Prabhath Agri Bio Tech P. Ltd.,

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

natural justice?.” 3. In so far as the first substantial question of law raised by the Revenue is concerned, learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the learned ITAT in its Order dated 31.03.2016 has given the findings, the relevant portion of which is quoted below for ready reference:- “ 11. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant

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

JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J 1. Nortel Networks India International Inc. (hereafter ‗the Assessee‘) has preferred the present appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‗the Act‘) against orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter ‗ITAT‘). ITA Nos. 669/2014, 671/2014 and 672/2014 are appeals preferred by the Assessee against a common

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s. Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Ltd.,

natural justice and fair play. 31. We have already noted in the earlier part of the judgment that although there is some difference in the language employed by the three Rent Control Acts under consideration which provide for revisional jurisdiction but, in our view, the revisional power of the High Court under these Acts is substantially similar and broadly such

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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

price, but instead of getting a deed of conveyance gets a SA/GPA/WILL as a mode of transfer, either at the instance of the vendor or at his own instance. Ill - effects of SA/GPA/WILL transactions: Page 41 of 76 C/LPA/94/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2021 RAVJIBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL SINCE DECD. THR'HEIRS V/s ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY U.L.C. 3. The earlier order