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

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, Guntur. vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Kangiri.

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

Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 or any other bank being a bank included in Second Schedule to Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and the like. The breach of Section 11(5) would attract Section 13(1)(d) of the IT Act and the benefit under Sections 11 and 12 would not be available if funds are deposited or invested

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 or any other bank being a bank included in Second Schedule to Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and the like. The breach of Section 11(5) would attract Section 13(1)(d) of the IT Act and the benefit under Sections 11 and 12 would not be available if funds are deposited or invested

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

In the result, we do not find

Section 92C of the Act. In the instant case, the assessee 12 had calculated the rate of interest at 7.50% and 8.49%. However, the Assessing Officer has scaled down the same to 5.67%. It is pertinent to mention here that Reserve Bank of India has given the approval in respect of the rate of interest and the approval given

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

price of each share of NIIT as Rs.1,493/-, instead of Rs.500/- per share. 11. Appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide orders dated 13th March, 2002. 12. Tribunal by common order dated 29th January, 2004 has dismissed the second appeals filed by the assessee. Tribunal in the impugned order has referred

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

transferred to the buyer subject to the statutory charge for the unpaid part of the sale price. 25. Thus, the sale deed could not have been invalidated on the reasoning that there was failure of the future consideration. 26. This Court held in Brahama Nand v. Roshani Devi, 1988 SCC OnLine

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

price  lower than the market rate. If that be so,  the   question   of   inflating   the   loss   by  transferring   the   shares   to   group   company  would   not   arise.   Under   ordinary  circumstances,   it   is   always   open   to   the  assessee in his own wisdom to either hold on  to certain bunch of shares or to sell the  same to avoid further loss

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

price  lower than the market rate. If that be so,  the   question   of   inflating   the   loss   by  transferring   the   shares   to   group   company  would   not   arise.   Under   ordinary  circumstances,   it   is   always   open   to   the  assessee in his own wisdom to either hold on  to certain bunch of shares or to sell the  same to avoid further loss

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

price  lower than the market rate. If that be so,  the   question   of   inflating   the   loss   by  transferring   the   shares   to   group   company  would   not   arise.   Under   ordinary  circumstances,   it   is   always   open   to   the  assessee in his own wisdom to either hold on  to certain bunch of shares or to sell the  same to avoid further loss

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

13 sale was made at a price that was greater than the guidelines value of the property. Thus, the price at which the sale was effected is at a reasonable price. The property was never sold outside to a third party, but it was a sale to itself, to a sister concern which never parted with the property and therefore

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 to pay - 13

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

13. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even if the original petitioner Deorao is not considered as a protected tenant in view of the bar under Section 5 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, there is no bar to lease the immovable property within the relations in terms of the provisions of Chapter V (Sections

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

prices were not settled. I have met Mr.Vivek Lall 2-3 times approximately during the last 5-7 years. I do not remember the place where these meetings were held.” 31. In cross-examination of Vivek Lall RW-1 recorded on 31st July, 2013 it was stated: RC.REV. 392/2013 & 394/2013 Page 32 of 46 “ …I had about 15 meetings with

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

Section 100 CPC is directed against the common judgment and decree dated 7-10-2006 passed in R.A.Nos.33 and 35 of 2002 by the District and Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court –II, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, wherein appeal filed by the plaintiff -K.T. Plantations Private Limited in RA 3 No.33/2002 came to be allowed

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

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

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