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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1. He relied upon decision of Apex Court in Dipak Banerjee Vs Lilabati Chakraborty,(1987) 4 SCC 161 and in particular paragraphs 10 & 12 thereof. In paragraph 9 of that report, the Apex Court referred to Section 105 of the T.P.Act. Section 105 defines lease. It lays down that a lease of immovable property is a transfer of a right

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3 vs. M/s Satyasai Bhavani Hsopitals Private Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10-CA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 prescribe the manner for working out ‘Arms Length Price’ under aforesaid prescribed Methods. 37. Section 92-CA of the Act envisages that the Assessing Authority, if he considers necessary or expedient so to do, he can with the previous approval of the Principal Commissioner, refer the computation of ‘Arm’s Length Price

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

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

10 were squarely covered by sub clause (iii) of Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) which states as follows: “(iii) the use of any patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property” 11. It is also important to note that the AO construed the word “process” in Section 9(1

The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) vs. Madhu Enterprises

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

1) or (3)a of Section-5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and ii) Inter-state sales of taxable goods falling within the scope of Section 3 of the CST Act, but shall not include: i) Purchase price of goods taxable under Section 10 of the CST Act; ii) Transaction falling under Section 5(2), Section

S.l. Shiva Raj vs. Commissioner of Income Tax,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1) or (3)a of Section-5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and ii) Inter-state sales of taxable goods falling within the scope of Section 3 of the CST Act, but shall not include: i) Purchase price of goods taxable under Section 10 of the CST Act; ii) Transaction falling under Section 5(2), Section

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

Transfer Pricing Officer has gone into the provision of Section 92A(2) of the Act. It is further submitted that the provisions of sub- Sections (1) and (2) of Section 92A are interlinked and have been read together harmoniously and therefore, the substantial question of law framed in this appeal is required to be answered in favour of the assessee

M/S.R.S.RANGADAS vs. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are disposed of, with no order as to costs

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

1) of the Act which states that profits and gains from transfer of the capital assets shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer takes place, the Assessing Officer held that income from capital gains from transfer/sale of one lakh equity shares of NIIT would be assessable

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

10. I have heard the learned counsels of the parties at length and perused the record and the judgments cited at the Bar. 11. Firstly, the relevant extract from the judgments cited at the Bar on behalf of the Assessee are quoted below for ready reference:- In M/s.Paschimi Raj. Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd.(supra), the Division Bench of this

The Commissioner of Income Tax-V vs. The Armed Forces Officers Co.Op Housing Society Ltd

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

price per acre (4 bighas 16 biswas or 4,840 sq yds) being 1,25,25,000/-. Plaintiff under the two Agreements to Sell dated 25.9.2006 paid a sum of Rs.40 lacs. A further amount of Rs.13 lacs was paid by the plaintiff to the defendants on 5.10.2006 which was acknowledged by means of a Receipt dated 10.10.2006. In terms

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

transfer pricing rules, it held the Assessing Authority does not have the power to substitute the value for the actual sale price in the absence of any evidence of understatement of the value. Therefore, the said finding recorded by the Assessing Authority was also set-aside and the appeal was allowed. 7. Aggrieved by the said order, revenue preferred

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

10 of 57 the AO that the equipment supplied to Reliance was sourced from Nortel Canada and Nortel Ireland at a much higher price than the price charged to Reliance and this resulted in the Assessee suffering a loss during the relevant period. 12. Since according to the Assessee, its income was not chargeable to tax under

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/s Padmapriya Real Estates AND Financiers

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment passed by

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

transfer at Jagdalpur, he handed over the further investigation to Sahid Ali / P. K. Shukla under the instruction of Superintendent of Police. In cross-examination he admitted that he has not 13 come across about any circular that 60% of the total amount is to be considered as expenditure and 40% is to be considered as savings. He further admitted

Commissioner of Income-Tax, vs. Rangaraya Medical College Old Students Association

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 16 of the Reforms Act, was granted. The order passed by the APERC was upheld by a Bench of this Court by an order dated 08.O6.2O01 in C.M.A.No.L97I of 2OOO and other connected matters- 10. Against the aforesaid order passed by a Bench of tltis Court, a Special Leave Peti(ion was preferred. 11. The Honble Supreme

M.Y.Maharshi vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, we do not find

1) on 10.09.2007. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 05.10.2007. During the relevant financial year, it was observed that the assessee had international transactions exceeding Rs.15 Crores. Therefore, with prior approval of the Commissioner of Income Tax 5 (Appeals), Bangalore-I, Bangalore, a reference

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s Y.Ramakrishna and others

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

10. POINT NO. 1- Admittedly, the sale consideration is Rs. 13,31,75O/- and purchaser paid advance of Rs. 2,O0,00O/- and the balance sale consideration is agreed to be paid by the purchaser in three Bi-monthly instalments, as (i) Rs. 3,75,000/ - ot 23.r2.1998

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Akula Nageswara Rao

In the result, the orders passed by the Assessing

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

price as well as the terms and conditions. The aforesaid quotation states that Dell product would be exported from Malaysia. Thus, the petitioner seeks customer's upfront contractual approval of manufacture and supply of required product from Malaysia. On receipt of the quotation, customer accepts either by signing the same or by raising a purchase order or by making

M/s. Maruthi Movies vs. Income Tax Officer

Bench: This Court & Making The Same A Rule Of Court, Alongwith Decree Against Respondents Awarding Rs.5,35,920/- Paid By The Petitioner To The Arbitrator As Their Share Of Fees As Per Order Dated 21.12.2010. 2. Respondent No.1 Has Filed Its Objections To The Award Under Section 30 & 33 Of The Act In Form Of I.A. No.9067/2011. Respondent No.2 Has Also Filed Its Objections To The Award.

10 lays down as to which contracts are enforceable and Section 14 lays down that certain contracts are not enforceable. Therefore, it cannot be laid down as a proposition of law that an agreement styled as a development agreement is not specifically enforceable under the said Act of 1963. The aspect of enforceability depends on facts of each case. xxxx