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

transfer by sale in regard to immovable property of the value of ₹ 100 or more and that is by a registered instrument. 17. It is now well settled that payment of the entire price is not a condition precedent for completion of the sale by passing of title, as Section

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

100 is to be effected through registered document which invariably supposes that it shall be in writing and 90 sufficient non judicial stamp shall be required. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, reads as under: 54. “Sale” defined.—‘‘Sale” is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price

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

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

transferred has to be known, the price has to be known and if any balance is payable what is that balance due. On such aspects existing then such a document will be a contract under the Indian Contract Act in view of Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act which states that all agreements are contracts if they are entered

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

transfer to other entities. In terms of the application made to RBI and permission obtained, the liaison office was to act as a communication channel between the head office and the customers in India. The assessees did not file returns of income for any year. 5. A survey under Section 133A of the Act was conducted

M\S.CHENNAKESAVA VIJAYAWADA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VIJAYAWAD

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

100 Crores; Rs. 438 Crores & Rs. 455 Crores respectively. It was noticed by the ITO that these contracts were allotted to its sister concern viz., Messrs. Essar Projects Limited which had obtained a Certificate u/s. 197(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” for short] for tax deduction at a lower rate on various contract payments to be made

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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

100. Page 8 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. (4) State of Uttar Pradesh v. Hari Ram, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 280. (5) Mangalsen v. State of U.P., reported in (2013) 4 SCC 332. (6) Vipinchandra Vadilal Bavishi (Dead) by Legal Representatives

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Sri Atluri Subba Rao,

price to purchase the suit land, the finding of the learned Trial Judge on this score was absolutely justified but the Appeal Court below, without considering the documents proved by the defendants in support of their said defence, has reversed the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Judge. He further submits that the defence of the defendants squarely comes

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

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s.Viskha Container Terminal Private Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Pricing Officer (TPO) vide letter dated 30.11.2009 and during the course of proceeding before the TPO, assessee vide its letter dated 09.06.2010 categorically stated that its registered office was at Hyderabad and it stood merged with Wipro Ltd., pursuant to the scheme of amalgamation approved by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide order dated 21.02.2008 and scheme of amalgamation

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV, HYDERABAD vs. M/S NAVA BHARAT VENTURES LTD., HYDERABAD

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

100% deduction under Se under which the Parties can claim and not for sale of Power to Assessment Order for the Assess 2005-06, the claim of deduction 196 1 was disallowed as assessee under Section 80-IA of the Rs.37,34,55,899 l- in resPect of assessment Year. Further; the As the deduction claimed

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

100% Nortel Networks International Finance & Holding BV Nortel Networks India International Inc. (Appellant) 99.82% 99.99% Nortel Networks Singapore Pte. Nortel Networks Mauritius Ltd. 99.99% Nortel Networks India Pvt. Ltd. ITA 666/2014 & Ors. Page 9 of 57 9. The Nortel Canada also has a Liaison Office in India (hereafter called ‗Nortel LO‘). 10. Nortel India negotiated and entered into three contracts

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

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

100 Watts before applying it to the transmitting antenna. The latter transforms the electrical signal from all the transponders into an equivalent electromagnetic form for radiation into the footprint where the receiving terminals are located. 8. This is the service the assessees provide to their customers, the income from which is sought to be taxed under Section

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

100 per cent export oriented undertakings and industrial undertakings in the North Eastern Region. These permit deduction of whole or part of the profits for certain period while computing the total income for the purpose of levy of tax. By the very nature of the benefit conferred, it is for the assessee to discharge the onus by showing that

Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur. vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Kangiri.

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

100 per cent export oriented undertakings and industrial undertakings in the North Eastern Region. These permit deduction of whole or part of the profits for certain period while computing the total income for the purpose of levy of tax. By the very nature of the benefit conferred, it is for the assessee to discharge the onus by showing that

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

100 square meters for setting up an appropriate industry here. The petitioner has been paying the installments of the aforesaid plot regularly and this industrial unit is also likely to be commissioned soon. In this case also, when actually setting up the industrial unit here, the petitioner will necessarily have to stay/ live here (to supervise actual execution of works

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Hycons Infrastructure (India) Ltd.

The appeals are dismissed

100% excise duty was modified and limited to the extent of value additi on with varying rates of exemption of the central excise duty. 4. The respondents, in WA No. 243 of 2009 and WA No. 230 of 2009, aggrieved by the modified notifications, which withdrew the concessions earlier offered i n the previous Industrial Policy and the notifications issued

Commissioner of Income Tax-3, vs. M/s State Bank of Hyderabad

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

100% Export Oriented Unit and therefore, the benefit of S.10B should be denied to the Respondent-assessee before this Court. 20. We are unable to accept even this submission of learned counsel for the appellant-Revenue. We do not find any good reason to take a narrow and pedantic approach in construing the words “by an Undertaking” and restricting

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