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

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

price paid by the customer to the assessee and states that this is disproportionately high in comparison to the cost incurred by the assessee for the transponder. This according to the AO lead to an inference that the customers are compensating the assessee for not only the transponder cost but also the cost of the satellite. The AO did this

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

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

AC to SC IV -------- JUDGMENT CAV on: 08/01/2020 Pronounced on: 29/01/2020 Per Deepak Roshan, J:- All the aforesaid writ petitions involve a common question of law, as such, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. These batch of writ petitions have been filed by the dealers registered under the provision of the Jharkhand

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

AC to SC IV -------- JUDGMENT CAV on: 08/01/2020 Pronounced on: 29/01/2020 Per Deepak Roshan, J:- All the aforesaid writ petitions involve a common question of law, as such, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. These batch of writ petitions have been filed by the dealers registered under the provision of the Jharkhand

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

12. AS TO DISCRETION TO GRANT DECREE FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE IN VIEW OF 2018 AMENDMENT TO 1963 ACT: 12.1 The suit in O.S.No.622/2005 was filed on 14.03.2005 and on transfer on account of change in pecuniary jurisdiction, it was renumbered as O.S.No.271/2009. Amongst other Sec. 10 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 came to be amended w.e.f. 01.08.2018 greatly

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

The appeals are dismissed

Ac t is that even in a case where a Rule, Notification, etc. is amended, etc., unle ss the amending Rule, Notification, etc. specifically denotes a contrary intenti on, everything that has taken place under the Rule, Notification, etc. prior to amendment shall continue to its logical end. This provision is not only a saving provision, but is a provision

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

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

1 and 2 companies and certain other individuals as Directors of 4 listed companies, 3 subsidiaries of one listed company and an unlisted company is bad in law since the Joint APLs merely represents the estate of PDB and thus, had no rights to seek appointment of Directors in companies in which PDB was not a "Member". Further, without prejudice

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

1. STATE OF KARNTAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001 2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE-560020 3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE-560020 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.V. SHASHIKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI. M.N. RAMANJANEYA GOWDA, ADVOCATE

K.V.D.PRASAD RAO vs. THE JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

1{s.15l- p('r shrlr-r .rs claimed by the assessee. FIe accordinglv computecl thi: long tcnn capital gains. FIe funher held that nott-ithsurnding tlic lock-irrperiod and the pledge of shares, those mtst br' regaftlcd ls li.rving been sold or trarsferred within the rreaning of Section 2('17) of rlre Act as the entire consideration 5 \\?s rtccived

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

AC 1 : (1911-13) All ER Rep 160 (HL), as under : “11. … In case of the death of an infant, there may have been no actual pecuniary benefit derived by its parents during the child's lifetime. But this will not necessarily bar the parents' claim and prospective loss will found a valid claim provided that the parents establish that