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

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

permanent establishment, except in the case of a banking institution. 4. It is understood that the deductions in respect of the head office expenses as referred to in paragraph (3) of Article III of the Agreement shall in no case be less than what are allowable under the Indian Income-tax Act as on the date of entry into force

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

permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff was also sought. In the alternative, the relief of possession of the suit land and recovery of ₹50,000/- along with interest @18% was also prayed. 3 3. It was pleaded that the plaintiff is an owner in possession of the suit land. The plaintiff

Sarwar Ahuja, vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1),

Accordingly dismissed. Pending applications are also dismissed

Bench: The Learned Itat Assailing The Order Dated 05.01.2024 Passed By The Assessing Officer [Ao] Under Section 147 Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Act. 3. The Assessee Is A Company, Which Is Tax Resident Of The United States Of America [Usa]. The Assessee Has Also Furnished A Tax Residency Certificate [Trc] From The Concerned Authorities Of The Said Country. Digitally Signed By:Tarun Rana Signing Date:01.06.2025 13:30:53 Signature Not Verified

pricing is agreed upfront basis the number of landings during a particular period of time. As and when repairs are required, the customer sends the equipment to the repair facility. The assessee will either provide the customer with a fully refurbished replacement unit in exchange for the customer’s equipment or assessee will repair the customer’s equipment and send

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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

establishing refinery continues to hold field and is often referred to in these three contracts. In case of Himachal Pradesh & Associated Hotels & India Limited (Supra) what is held necessary to be considered for the Court in each case is as to what is the primary object of the transaction and intention of the parties while entering into it before

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Pricing Study: - 1 FTS 2 FIS 3 Act 4 DTAA 5 Tribunal Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:17.02.2025 14:23:05 Signature Not Verified ITA 202/2022 & Connected Matters Page 7 of 22 “d) Technical Knowledge: Customs brokerage and other services involves providing services at destination, such as helping customers clear shipments through customs by preparing required documentation, calculating

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

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

permanent establishment in the territory of India not taxable as business profits either. 10. The AO recognised that the operative words in the definition would be “use” and “process”. First, as regards the word “process”, the AO held that the series of acts undertaken within the transponder are done to achieve a particular result, i.e. to make the signals viewable

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

price for sale of property sold by her husband which is western portion of Tataguni estate in favour of plaintiff-Company and she has not agreed to sell the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per acre. 17. It is further claimed that Managing Director of plaintiff-Company K.T. Bhagath was with

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

price of Raw-Edge and Wrapped V-Belts excluding sales tax, excise duty and other governmental taxes and levies, insurance, forwarding and packaging expenses nad freight charges. (b). Unless otherwise specified by the Proprietor, the royality hereunder shall be paid to Hilton Rubbers Limited, S-21, Green Park Extension, i_e “” Delhi 110016, in India Rupees at half yearly intervals

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, HYD vs. M/S. SUJANA METALS LTD, HYD

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

price; and (ii) In any other case [not being a case falling under sub-clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-section (1) of section 49], shall be taken to be nil” ITA 549/2011 Page 11 of 16 9. This provision clearly provides determining the cost of any relation to a capital asset being the right to manufacture, produce or process

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

Accordingly are partly allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Permanently lost rights can not be allowed to disturb and dis-concert owners and long and established prevailing disposition of the property. 9. Learned senior advocate submits that delay is extra- ordinary and unreasonable and without any plausible explanation being there and inaction for over 40 years would not be able to sustain the claim

The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Vaishnavi Educational Society

In the result, this Cross Objection is allowed and the suit is

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

permanent prohibitory injunction against the Owners from trespassing into the properties covered by RFA 554/15 & CON. CASES 11 the Sale Deeds, asserting that the said Deeds are valid and themselves to be in its possession. 5. The afore three suits were taken to trial jointly, and the Trial Court marked Exhibits A1 to A30 on the side of the Owners

The Commissioner of Income -Tax - III, vs. Shri Taher Ali

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

permanently shifted to Muscat some time in the year 1989. Thus, the plaintiffs have established that defendant no.1 tenant has not used the suit premises for the purpose for which they were let out for continuous period of six months immediately preceding the date of the suit. The Appellate Court observed that the plaintiffs did not plead specifically

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. M/S GOLDEN STAR FACILITIES AND SERVICES PVT LTD., HYD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

price payable by installments, that is, by way of rent or royalty, spread over a number of years.” 64. Learned counsel has also invited our attention to paragraph (108), which is reproduced hereunder: WP(C). 11249/2010 & other contd cases. -:91:- “108. This Court had occasion to consider the concept of mining lease under Act, 1957 in Sri Tarkeshwar Sio Thakur

Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur. vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Kangiri.

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

Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 or any other bank being a bank included in Second Schedule to Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and the like. The breach of Section 11(5) would attract Section 13(1)(d) of the IT Act and the benefit under Sections 11 and 12 would not be available if funds are deposited or invested

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 or any other bank being a bank included in Second Schedule to Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and the like. The breach of Section 11(5) would attract Section 13(1)(d) of the IT Act and the benefit under Sections 11 and 12 would not be available if funds are deposited or invested

Shri Maneklal Agarwal vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed and

Bench: A RAMALINGESWARA RAO,DILIP B. BHOSALE

prices during the last three decades. 20 CFA Nos. 1/2005 & 2/2005 26. In these circumstances, grant of decree of specific performance in favour of the respondent when he has paid only a paltry sum of Rs.100 lacs to the appellants and has defaulted in payment of Rs.1.50 lacs within the time stipulated in the agreement, would not be a proper

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Sri Atluri Subba Rao,

price to purchase the suit land, the finding of the learned Trial Judge on this score was absolutely justified but the Appeal Court below, without considering the documents proved by the defendants in support of their said defence, has reversed the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Judge. He further submits that the defence of the defendants squarely comes

Srinivasa Resorts Limited, vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, AP. Hyderabad.

The appeal is partly allowed;

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

price, the Plaintiffs filed a suit for injunction in OS.No.7269/1995. The Trial Court initially granted an order of Temporary Injunction restraining the Defendant from alienating the suit property. Thereafter, since the Defendant, inspite of service of summons, did not appear, he was placed ex parte. The Trial Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 30.7.1996, decreed the said suit