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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

29 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. under Section 6 of the Act, that the land in question situated in Van Shree Cooperative Housing Society admeasuring 829.25 sq.mtrs. was of the individual ownership of the petitioner Pannaben Niranjan Mehta and was her self-acquired property. Thus

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

29. In the case of Santosh Hazari Vs. Purushottam Tiwari (Deceased) by LRs., [2001] 3 SCC 179, another Three Judges’ Bench of the Honble Supreme Court explained the meaning of the substantial questions of law in paras.11 and 12 in the following manner. “11. Even under the old Section 100 of the Code (pre-1976 amendment), a pure finding

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 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

29,024/- to JII. The assessee sought to justify the consideration paid to international transactions entered with JII to be at arm's length. 4. The Assessing Officer thereafter referred the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer, who by an order dated 30.01.2014 inter alia computed the transfer pricing adjustment at Rs.20,20,07,861/- under Section 92CA

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

10 of 26 the allottees within 30 days to the Registrar of Companies. Balance sheet of M/s GIPL as on 31st March, 1998 had not been filed with the Registrar of Companies till completion of assessment, i.e. 7th March, 2001, though it was stated that the audit was completed and finalized on 1st September, 1998. 14. Thus, the tribunal observed

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

29 the period beginning on the 1st Day of April, 1997 and ending on the 31st day of March, 2006.” 14. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (iii) of sub-section (4) of section 80 IA, the Central Government has framed Industrial Park Scheme, 2002. In Clause – 2 Definition, defines the “common facilities” includes the facilities

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

transferred to the buyer subject to the statutory charge for the unpaid part of the sale price. 25. Thus, the sale deed could not have been invalidated on the reasoning that there was failure of the future consideration. 26. This Court held in Brahama Nand v. Roshani Devi, 1988 SCC OnLine

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

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

29(i). In fact this plea of the defendants to be paid a sum of Rs.2 crores in October, 2006 and Rs.1 crore in November, 2006 is barred by the provisions of Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Once a contract is entered into between the parties and the same contains a specific term of making

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-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

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 - 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-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

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

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 paid or promised or part- paid and part-promised. Sale how made.—Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument. 1In the case of tangible immoveable property of a value

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

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

Pricing Officer had not verified whether the expenditure claimed was correct. Recording the aforesaid findings, the Assessing Officer disallowed the entire claim of Rs.1,48,89,090/- under section 10A of the Act. 5. The aforesaid addition was deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who observed that the respondent-assessee was maintaining separate accounts for STPI

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10 - RFA No.178 OF 2015 C/W RFA CROB NO.19 OF 2015 10.9.2014. He was subjected to examination-in-chief and cross-examination. In the deposition of defendants, as many as 33 documents came to be produced and got marked as Exhibits D1 to D33 which inter alia comprised of agreement, power of attorney, cheque, bank debit slips and endorsements, notices