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

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

VIII, Dhubi, Nirsha, Dhanbad through its Authorized Signatory Sri Lakhan Lal ..... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Department, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi 3. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Administration), Dhanbad Division, Dhanbad 4. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Chirkunda Circle), Dhanbad .…. … Respondents With W.P.(T) No.4013 of 2018 M/s Shri Marooti (S.S.F.) Industries

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

VIII, Dhubi, Nirsha, Dhanbad through its Authorized Signatory Sri Lakhan Lal ..... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Department, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi 3. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Administration), Dhanbad Division, Dhanbad 4. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Chirkunda Circle), Dhanbad .…. … Respondents With W.P.(T) No.4013 of 2018 M/s Shri Marooti (S.S.F.) Industries

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

M/s. Canara Securities Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO,T.AMARNATH GOUD

viii) The probate proceedings shall be conducted by the Probate Court in the manner prescribed in the Act and in no other way. Therefore, it cannot be argued that there is any lacuna in the Act to cover any exigency concerning a probate proceedings or Administrator Proceedings. (ix) That, the Court is well-equipped under Section 247 of the Succession

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Hyderabad House Pvt Ltd.,

price index for industrial workers [CPI (IW)]. The view in Kamla Devi (supra) was followed in a number of subsequent decisions of this Court in cases reported as Ashwani Gupta v. Government of India & Ors. 117 (2005) DLT 112; Tasleema v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. ILR (2009) 6 Del 486 : (2009) 161 DLT 660 (DB); Nagrik Sangarsh Samiti

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Section 13 which provides for Rule making power of the Central Government in respect of minerals. Section 13 subsection (1) WP(C). 11249/2010 & other contd cases. -:88:- and Section 13 Sub-section (2) in so far as relevant in the present case are as follows: “13. Power of Central Government to make Rules in respect of minerals.-- (1) The Central

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

viii) this benefit is subject to the condition that the dealer, selling the goods, furnishes a declaration in Form ‘C’ 14 or a certificate in Form ‘D’ in accordance with Section 8(4) of the CST Act. 19. Section 4-B of the 1948 Act related to special relief to certain manufacturers. Rule 25-B(1) of the U.P. Trade

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

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act, but the term “royalty” as defined and covered under Art VIII A of the DTAA. 7. Before we examine the relevant clauses of agreement dated 11th May, 1987 between HCL and ADC, it would be first appropriate to examine the ambit and scope of the term „royalty‟ taxable under Article VIIIA

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s. Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Ltd.,

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. To succeed in the eviction petition, the petitioner was required to prove the three requirements envisaged in Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act i.e. that he was the owner/landlord of the premises, that the premises was required RC.REV. 392/2013 & 394/2013 Page 16 of 46 bonafidely

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

6. The Reserve Bank of India gave no objection for the making of payment on 30th March, 1996. The appellant/assessee filed its return of income for assessment year (hereinafter „AY‟) 1996-97 declaring a loss of Rs.23,39,304/-. Deduction was claimed under Section 37(1) of the Act in respect of payment of Rs.1 Crore made

The commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s Lanco Kondapalli Power (P) Ltd

6. International Cargo Terminal Private Limited, Having his office at Village Koproli, Taluka Uran, District Raigad, Maharashtra 410 212. 7. Gateway Distriparks Limited, Having his office at Sector 6, Dronagiri, Talua Uran, Navi Mumbai 400 707. …Respondents Page 113 of 198 22nd March 2024 Saurer Textile Solutions Pvt Ltd v The State of Maharashtra & Ors & Connected Writ Petitions

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Natco Exports Ltd.

In the result, the judgment and decree passed by the

price of the land as per the circle rate fixed by the Government and would not mention the entire consideration money of Rs. 3,35,000/- because it would cost them higher stamp fee and court fee and they may be involved in income tax. They further stated that at the request of the plaintiffs they executed the sale deeds

The Pr. Commissioner of Income tax (Central), vs. Sri Vaishnavi Educational Society,

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.51929/2014 C/W W.P.Nos.42063/2012, 30494/2013, 42671/2013, 638/2014, 797/2014, 1089/2014, 3211/2014, 3389/2014, 6180/2014, 10356/2014, 12014/2014, 12015/2014, 13043/2014, 13045/2014, 13206/2014, 13207/2014, 13398/2014, 13774/2014, 14149/2014, 14161/2014, 14494/2014, 14502/2014, 14521/2014, 14689/2014, 16646/2014, 17051/2014, 17594/2014, 19729/2014, 21158/2014, 23897/2014, 28861/2014, 30731/2014, 31723/2014, 33774/2014, 33777/2014, 34084/2014, 34259/2014, 34272/2014, 34391/2014, 35204/2014, 35243/2014, 35247/2014, 35305/2014, 35609/2014, 36164/2014, 36166/2014, 36489/2014, 36525/2014, 36971/2014, 37446/2014, 38055/2014, 38463/2014, 38471/2014, 38472/2014, 38661/2014, 38753/2014, 39383/2014, 39633/2014, 39832/2014, 40204/2014, 40379/2014, 41394/2014, 41422/2014, 41427/2014, 41428/2014, 41858/2014, 43815/2014, 43963/2014, 44306/2014, 44527/2014, 44742/2014, 44835/2014, 45486/2014, 46766/2014, 47103/2014, 47105/2014, 47106/2014, 47107/2014, 47608/2014, 47731/2014, 47821/2014, 47860/2014, 47913/2014, 48577/2014, 48880/2014, 49567/2014, 50260/2014, 50533/2014, 51294/2014, 51930/2014, 51931/2014, 51932/2014, 52760/2014, 53854/2014, 54059/2014, 54083/2014, 54236/2014

6. S ANJALIDEVI D/O LATE SREERAMULU NAIDU AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO.4, MUNISWAMY GOWDA LAYOUT HEBBAL KEMPAPURA BANGALORE 24 7. SRI NAVEEN LAL SHAH S/O LATE S.L. SHAH R/AT NO.6 116 1ST MAIN MUNISWAMY GOWDA LAYOUT HEBBAL KEMPAPURA BANGALORE - 24 8. SRI PRAKASHAPPA S/O CHANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO.36, 1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS MUNISWAMY GOWDA LAYOUT HEBBAL