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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

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 an appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal held that it is an undisputed fact that the assessee had developed

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

Section 54F would be considered in the said year. Total taxable income was assessed at Rs.2,38,02,380/- on ITA Nos. 405/2005, 406/2005 & 389/2007 Page 4 of 26 account of certain additions with which we are not concerned. 7. Assessment Order for the AY 1999-2000 referred to the assessment order for the AY 1998-99 and the findings

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

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

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

price of goods. The manner of 49 calculation of ITC was entirely different before this amendment. In the example, which has been given in the earlier part of the judgment, “dealer” was entitled to ITC of Rs. 10 on resale, which was paid by the dealer as VAT while purchasing the goods from the vendors. However, in view of Section

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

price of goods. The manner of 49 calculation of ITC was entirely different before this amendment. In the example, which has been given in the earlier part of the judgment, “dealer” was entitled to ITC of Rs. 10 on resale, which was paid by the dealer as VAT while purchasing the goods from the vendors. However, in view of Section

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

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

38 of 43 plaintiff should get damages and that the defendants should not be asked to specifically perform by executing the sale deeds. 32. No doubt, it is the law that grant of specific performance is a discretionary relief, and which is made clear by Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act and especially sub-Section 3 thereof which requires

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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

38,462/­ and in the  note   total   business   loss   to   be   carried  forward to asst. year 1993­94 are computed  at Rs.6,91,502/­. 15. In paragraph 12 of the assessment order  it has been mentioned by Assessing Officer  that according to the assessment order for  Asst.   Year   1991­92   read   with   order   under  section 154 there is no carry forward loss

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

38,462/­ and in the  note   total   business   loss   to   be   carried  forward to asst. year 1993­94 are computed  at Rs.6,91,502/­. 15. In paragraph 12 of the assessment order  it has been mentioned by Assessing Officer  that according to the assessment order for  Asst.   Year   1991­92   read   with   order   under  section 154 there is no carry forward loss

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

38,462/­ and in the  note   total   business   loss   to   be   carried  forward to asst. year 1993­94 are computed  at Rs.6,91,502/­. 15. In paragraph 12 of the assessment order  it has been mentioned by Assessing Officer  that according to the assessment order for  Asst.   Year   1991­92   read   with   order   under  section 154 there is no carry forward loss

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

38. Learned Senior counsel Mr.K.N.Phanindra for appellant would submit that the sale agreements or sale deed do not have full and substantial value. He would also submit that the execution of the registered sale deed of the schedule property only can complete the transfer of ownership as that is the only procedure which is the final one. He would further

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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

38 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SRI.D.SRINIVASA MURTHY, S/O LATE DODDAMUTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O NO.1399, 12-B, CROSS ROAD, II STAGE, BASAVESWARANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 096. ...CROSS OBJECTOR (BY SRI.JAYAKUMAR S PATIL., SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI.H N BASAVARAJU., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . M/S SUN RAMA EXPORTS PRIVATE LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES

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

Accordingly are partly allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10) The order passed by the civil court is only amenable to be scrutinised by the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Once it is exclusively assailable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, no intra-court appeal is maintainable. Jurisdiction under Article 227 is distinct from jurisdiction under Article

The Commissioner of Income Tax (IT and TP) vs. M/s. Idea Cellular Limited

Accordingly, the learned appellate authority has rightly dismissed the

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

price. 27. In that view of the matter, as it is admitted case of the petitioner that the electricity generated in 540 MW Power Plant is used in the course of or furtherance of his business, which is evident from Form G provided by the taxpayer i.e. the petitioner herein, the petitioner would not be entitled for ITC to electrical

Suchirindia Infratech Pvt. Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax

Accordingly, the learned appellate authority has rightly dismissed the

Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

price. 27. In that view of the matter, as it is admitted case of the petitioner that the electricity generated in 540 MW Power Plant is used in the course of or furtherance of his business, which is evident from Form G provided by the taxpayer i.e. the petitioner herein, the petitioner would not be entitled for ITC to electrical

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

transferred outside India and the payments were also received outside India. It was pointed out that several activities relating to marketing and sales took place in India. Expatriates from GEII along with employees of GEIIPL constituting the Indian team were mostly involved and participated in the negotiation of prices. These price negotiations took place in India. The Indian customers discussed