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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Transfer Pricing/ determination of the ‘Arm’s Length Price’; [II] The Scheme of procedure of assessment and appeals to the Tribunal and High Court/Supreme Court. [III] The scope of interference by High Court under Section 260-A of the Act in these type of cases. Findings of the Tribunal: 12. We find it appropriate to quote some portions

M.Y.Maharshi vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, we do not find

transfer pricing issues have to be determined on the basis of financial sun transactions of the previous financial year relevant to the assessment year involved as mandated under Rule 10B of the Rules. Alternatively, it is submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal has been passed without any reasons and suffers from the vice of non-application of mind

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

Transfer Pricing Officer has gone into the provision of Section 92A(2) of the Act. It is further submitted that the provisions of sub- Sections (1) and (2) of Section 92A are interlinked and have been read together harmoniously and therefore, the substantial question of law framed in this appeal is required to be answered in favour of the assessee

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 in respect of purchase of House No.5, Golf Links, New Delhi for Rs.10.75 Crores was allowed and the balance amount of Rs.4,18,00,000/- was treated as long term capital gains. In other words, the Assessing Officer assumed the transfer price of each share of NIIT as Rs.1,493/-, instead of Rs.500/- per share. 11

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

11. A Division Bench of this Court Kanwarani Madna Vati and another v. Raghunath Singh and others, AIR 1976 HP4I, interpreting the provisions of Section 62 of the Registration Act held that there is a presumption of correctness of the document if its execution is admitted before the Registrar. The Division Bench in para 20 observed: "Under Section

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

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

11. As per the Indian Contract Act, for a contract being an agreement to sell to be complete, who is the buyer and seller must be known, the land in question which is to be 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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

11,03,600/­ 3Short term loss 16,88,750/­ The consolidated  figures  of sale and purchase  of shares are as under:­ Purchase Price Rs. 85,84,750/­ Sale Price Rs. 97,26,800/­ In all total 19 transactions have been done  by   assessee.   Referring   to   transaction   No.10  which is in respect of shares  of Ambuja Port  Ltd,   he   pointed

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

11,03,600/­ 3Short term loss 16,88,750/­ The consolidated  figures  of sale and purchase  of shares are as under:­ Purchase Price Rs. 85,84,750/­ Sale Price Rs. 97,26,800/­ In all total 19 transactions have been done  by   assessee.   Referring   to   transaction   No.10  which is in respect of shares  of Ambuja Port  Ltd,   he   pointed

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

11,03,600/­ 3Short term loss 16,88,750/­ The consolidated  figures  of sale and purchase  of shares are as under:­ Purchase Price Rs. 85,84,750/­ Sale Price Rs. 97,26,800/­ In all total 19 transactions have been done  by   assessee.   Referring   to   transaction   No.10  which is in respect of shares  of Ambuja Port  Ltd,   he   pointed

Commissioner of Income tax-VI vs. M/s. Narpat Girji Constructions,

The appeal is allowed

Section 457 of the Companies Act r/w Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules. In Paragraph 11 of the said application, KIAMS submitted that the it would be constrained to get the property transferred into their name immediately, failing which, the Institution would not be recognized. It was also said that they were willing

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Construction

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently submitted that in the ceiling proceedings, the respondent late Vasant Ingle has admitted that Deorao is the tenant over the suit land and he is in possession of the suit land in the capacity as a tenant. The respondent late Vasant Ingle in a statement before the ceiling authority, has therefore prayed

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

transfer pricing rules, it held the Assessing Authority does not have the power to substitute the value for the actual sale 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

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

11-06-2013 framed the following substantial question of law: 1. Can there be a declaration that sale deed dated 16-2-1992 which is unregistered is valid and does 40 it not negate the Section 17 of the Registration Act? 2. Can there be a declaration that the sale deed with respect to agricultural property in favour

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

price. He had also kept ready the bank draft for a sum of Rs.20 lakh on 25.2.2004 and on the very same day, surprisingly, 1st defendant got issued revocation notice through her lawyer. Plaintiff had a huge amount of money in his bank account. Suit was originally filed in 2005 and court directed status quo qua transfer of title

The Commissioner of income Tax-III, vs. M/S Raj Breeders and Hatcheries [Pvt.] Ltd.,

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.04.2011 on the following substantial questions of law: i) Whether the stocks transferred on cost price can be assessed to tax on a notional price? ii) Whether the assessee has the right to fix the price of the stock and transfer

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s Y.Ramakrishna and others

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

transfer has not been completed in the manner prescribed therefor by the law for the time being in force, ttre transferor or any person claiming under him shall be debarred from I 1i enforcing against the transferee and persons claiming under him any right in respect of the property of which the tuansferee has taken or continued in possession, other

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/s. Value Labs

Bench: P.KESHAVA RAO,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

11:20:12 291 (Delhi) without appreciating the relevant facts and ignoring that this comparable was selected by the Assessee itself in its transfer pricing report. iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting Persistent Systems Private Limited, which was selected by Assessee in its transfer pricing report as a suitable comparable

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