The Commissioner of Income -Tax - III, vs. Shri Taher Ali

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

11 (Colly), 12, 13 (Colly), 15, substantiate defendants' case. 73. Mr. Walawalkar invited my attention to cross examination of DW 1-Mangaldas K. Thakkar. He submitted that the plaintiffs' Advocate had given two suggestions, viz. (1) the agreement of Leave and licence of defendant no.2 was revoked or cancelled by defendant no.1 in the year 1972 and (2) that defendant

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

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

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

transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of any copyright, literary, artistic or scientific work including films or video tapes for use in connection with ITA 473/2012, 474/2012, 500/2012 & 244/2014 Page 8 television or tapes for use in connection with radio broadcasting, but not including consideration for the sale, distribution or exhibition

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

1 Lakh equity shares were pledged with them by the assessee. As the value of the shares pledged was more than Rs.5 lakhs, in terms of the instruction issued by the Reserve Bank of India, these equity shares were physically ITA Nos. 405/2005, 406/2005 & 389/2007 Page 6 of 26 transferred in the name of the bank. Subsequently, the bank

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

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

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

11. The learned counsels for the petitioners have further assailed the amendment carried out under the JVAT Rules, by virtue of notification dated 17.2.2017 contending that by said notification the machinery provisions have been given retrospective effect i.e. w.e.f. 1.4.2015. It has been contended that Section-94 of the JVAT Act, 2005 contains Rule making power and it is submitted

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

11. The learned counsels for the petitioners have further assailed the amendment carried out under the JVAT Rules, by virtue of notification dated 17.2.2017 contending that by said notification the machinery provisions have been given retrospective effect i.e. w.e.f. 1.4.2015. It has been contended that Section-94 of the JVAT Act, 2005 contains Rule making power and it is submitted

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

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

1. Nortel Networks India International Inc. (hereafter ‗the Assessee‘) has preferred the present appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‗the Act‘) against orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter ‗ITAT‘). ITA Nos. 669/2014, 671/2014 and 672/2014 are appeals preferred by the Assessee against a common ITA 666/2014 & Ors. Page 4 of 57 order

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/s Padmapriya Real Estates AND Financiers

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment passed by

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

transfer at Jagdalpur, he handed over the further investigation to Sahid Ali / P. K. Shukla under the instruction of Superintendent of Police. In cross-examination he admitted that he has not 13 come across about any circular that 60% of the total amount is to be considered as expenditure and 40% is to be considered as savings. He further admitted

Commissioner of Income-Tax, vs. Rangaraya Medical College Old Students Association

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 16 of the Reforms Act, was granted. The order passed by the APERC was upheld by a Bench of this Court by an order dated 08.O6.2O01 in C.M.A.No.L97I of 2OOO and other connected matters- 10. Against the aforesaid order passed by a Bench of tltis Court, a Special Leave Peti(ion was preferred. 11. The Honble Supreme

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

In the result, we do not find

1) on 10.09.2007. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 05.10.2007. During the relevant financial year, it was observed that the assessee had international transactions exceeding Rs.15 Crores. Therefore, with prior approval of the Commissioner of Income Tax 5 (Appeals), Bangalore-I, Bangalore, a reference

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

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. 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. M/s Y.Ramakrishna and others

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

1- Admittedly, the sale consideration is Rs. 13,31,75O/- and purchaser paid advance of Rs. 2,O0,00O/- and the balance sale consideration is agreed to be paid by the purchaser in three Bi-monthly instalments, as (i) Rs. 3,75,000/ - ot 23.r2.1998; (ii) Rs. 3,75,OOO/- on 23.02.7999 and (iii) Rs. 3,81,750/ on23.O4.1999

Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

transfer is, therefore, not vitiated by lis pendence. Section 52 of the Act does not wipe out the transaction altogether. 5.PrinciplegroundsofcontentioninC.C.C.A.No.186 of 2O11 are as under:- TheLowerCourtfailedtoseethatRespondentsl to 11 and 14 (Vendors) failed to comply with the condition of obtaining NOC under IT Act, which was mandatory on the date of the agreement of sale Ex. A3 and filing

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agrilcultural Market Committee

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

transfer is, therefore, not vitiated by lis pendence. Section 52 of the Act does not wipe out the transaction altogether. 5.PrinciplegroundsofcontentioninC.C.C.A.No.186 of 2O11 are as under:- TheLowerCourtfailedtoseethatRespondentsl to 11 and 14 (Vendors) failed to comply with the condition of obtaining NOC under IT Act, which was mandatory on the date of the agreement of sale Ex. A3 and filing