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

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

7], Commissioner of Income Tax v Gujarat Maritime Board, Commissioner of Income Tax v Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (1)[8] and Commissioner of Income Tax v Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (2)[9]. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION The main point for consideration is whether AMCs constituted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under Section 4 of the AMC Act are institutions established

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

7], Commissioner of Income Tax v Gujarat Maritime Board, Commissioner of Income Tax v Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (1)[8] and Commissioner of Income Tax v Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (2)[9]. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION The main point for consideration is whether AMCs constituted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under Section 4 of the AMC Act are institutions established

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10A and 10B are concerned, besides the nature of unit being different Free Trade Zone Unit (S.10A) and 100% EOU Unit (S.10B), the substance of these Date of Judgment 23-07-2018 I.T.A.No.77 /2016 Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr., Vs. M/s. GE Medical Systems India Pvt. Ltd., 9/19 provisions is the same, the difference is only in the categories

The Director of Income Tax, (Exemptions) vs. Exhibition Society

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10A of the IT Act are allowed only in Export Turnover but not from the Total Turnover then, it would give rise to inadvertent, unlawful, meaningless and illogical result which would cause grave injustice to the Respondent which could have never been the intention of the legislature. 20. Even in common parlance, when the object of the formula

Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply AND Sewerage Board vs. The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax

7 : 3. The controversy is no longer res integra and is covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s.Tata Elxsi Ltd., vs. Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, decided on 20.10.2015 since reported in (2015) 127 DTR 0327 (Kar), which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner

The COmmissioner of Income Tax -IV vs. Nagarjuna Aqua Exports Ltd.,

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

Transfer Pricing Provisions? 5. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has also erred in excluding comparable’s on the basis of RPT filter being less than 25% by following its earlier decision which has reached finality not even when the comparable’s are chosen as all the required tests are satisfied?” 3. Learned

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3 vs. M/s Sri Indra Power Energies Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10A by relying up on the decision of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Tata Elxsi Ltd., to exclude the foreign travel both from the total turnover and the export turnover even when the same is not permissible in law and the decision relied upon by Tribunal has not reached finality? (2) Whether, on the facts

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, 6 vs. Vijay Infotech Ventures

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

10A of the IT Act are allowed only in Export Turnover but not from the Total Turnover then, it would give rise to inadvertent, unlawful, meaningless and illogical result which would cause grave injustice to the Respondent which could have never been the intention of the legislature. 20. Even in common parlance, when the object of the formula

The Commissioner of Income Tax [Central] vs. Sri K S V Raja

10A of the IT Act are allowed only in Export Turnover but not from the Total Turnover then, it would give rise to inadvertent, unlawful, meaningless and illogical result which would cause grave injustice to the Respondent Date of Judgment 13-08-2018, ITA No.530/2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6 & Another Vs. M/s. Sandisk India Device Design Centre

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

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

Section 178 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the Chairman of the company, HVL cannot arrogate unto himself the power to cause such appointment when such power ultimately rests with the Board of Directors. The observation of the two Joint APLs that the evident performance of BCrL, the flagship company of MP Birla Group is deteriorating ever since, HVL became

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

10a Surekha Mahendra kumar Shah 10b Mahendrakumar Mafatlal Shah, both of Mumbai Indian Inhabitants, having present address at A/1003 Gokul Vrindavan, Shantilal Modi X Road No.2, Kandivali (West), Mumbai 400 067. 11a Atul Shakaralal Shah 11b Alpa Atul Shah, both adults, of Mumbai, Indian Inhabitants, having present address at B/104 Shanti Apartment No.1, Mathuradas Ext Road, Kandivali (West), Mumbai