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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10 vis-a-vis adjudicatory process in Sections 8 and 9 subject to appeal under Section 33 of the Act and revision by the State under Section 34 of the Act which will be discussed in some other appropriate case on merits. Page 38 of 76 C/LPA/94/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2021 RAVJIBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL SINCE DECD. THR'HEIRS V/s ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

20. From a bare comparison of the provisions quoted above and as discussed in various judgments of the Constitutional Courts, which we will refer in brief herein below, it is clear that the Scheme of both Section 260-A in Income Tax Act, 1961 and Section 100 r/w. Section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure are in pari materia

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

20,07,861/-, disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) to the extent of Rs.20,51,175/- and disallowance of Rs.74,08,964/- under the provisions of Section 80JJAA of the Act were proposed. The 5 assessee thereupon filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel contesting all the additions. The Dispute Resolution Panel, however rejected the objections

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

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

In the result, we do not find

20,245/- is required to be made under Section 92CA of the Act. 3. The order of the Transfer Pricing Officer was sent to the assessee vide communication dated 13.11.2009 in order to enable the assessee to respond to the order. Thereafter, the assessee disputed the draft assessment and preferred objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel. The Dispute Resolution Panel

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

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

price of goods taxable under Section 10 of the Act; ii) Transaction falling under Section 5(2), Section 6-A and Section 6(2) of the CST Act, 1956, iii) Value of transfer of a business as a whole iv) [ xxx] (iii) This sub-rule is not applicable, if the VAT dealer is making exempt transactions. 22. By comparing

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

price of goods taxable under Section 10 of the Act; ii) Transaction falling under Section 5(2), Section 6-A and Section 6(2) of the CST Act, 1956, iii) Value of transfer of a business as a whole iv) [ xxx] (iii) This sub-rule is not applicable, if the VAT dealer is making exempt transactions. 22. By comparing

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. New Bombay Goods Transport

transfer of property became taxable under Section 3(a) if the movement of goods from one State to another was under a covenant, or an incident, of the contract of sale and the property in the goods passed to the purchaser in another State. [S.R. Sarkar26]. If there was interruption of movement, and the snapping of the inextricable bond that

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

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

10. Section 60 of the Registration Act specifically provides that the certificate endorsed on the document, registered by the Registrar, shall not only be admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving that document has duly been registered in the manner provided under the Act but also that the facts mentioned in the document referred to in Section 59 have

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

price of each share of NIIT as Rs.1,493/-, instead of Rs.500/- per share. 11. Appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide orders dated 13th March, 2002. 12. Tribunal by common order dated 29th January, 2004 has dismissed the second appeals filed by the assessee. Tribunal in the impugned order has referred

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

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

Section 3 thereof which requires substantial acts to be done by the plaintiff. Substantial acts have been interpreted in judgments that payment of only nominal consideration of 10 to 15% is a good ground to deny specific performance and for the proposed buyer/plaintiff only to get damages, however, whether or not specific performance should be granted or damages should

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10….. (i) The purchases have been made through a  share broker, which establish the purchases  along   with   its   purchase   value.   The  Assessing   Officer   has   accepted   the  purchases and its price to be genuine. (ii) Once the purchases have been found to  be genuinely made, either there should be  corresponding   sales   or   the   shares   should  form part of the closing stock

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10….. (i) The purchases have been made through a  share broker, which establish the purchases  along   with   its   purchase   value.   The  Assessing   Officer   has   accepted   the  purchases and its price to be genuine. (ii) Once the purchases have been found to  be genuinely made, either there should be  corresponding   sales   or   the   shares   should  form part of the closing stock

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10….. (i) The purchases have been made through a  share broker, which establish the purchases  along   with   its   purchase   value.   The  Assessing   Officer   has   accepted   the  purchases and its price to be genuine. (ii) Once the purchases have been found to  be genuinely made, either there should be  corresponding   sales   or   the   shares   should  form part of the closing stock

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

Section 100 CPC is directed against the common judgment and decree dated 7-10-2006 passed in R.A.Nos.33 and 35 of 2002 by the District and Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court –II, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, wherein appeal filed by the plaintiff -K.T. Plantations Private Limited in RA 3 No.33/2002 came to be allowed

Commissioner of Income tax-VI vs. M/s. Narpat Girji Constructions,

The appeal is allowed

10 - OSA No. 19 of 2015 LESSEE. Upon such conveyance conferring absolute title to the LESSEE, the LESSOR shall permit the right of passage to the staff members of the LESSEE, who may reside in the staff quarters of the LESSEE located within the residential colony premises of the LESSOR. The stamp duty, registration charges and other expenses