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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

B, 10-C & 10-CA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 prescribe the manner for working out ‘Arms Length Price’ under aforesaid prescribed Methods. 37. Section 92-CA of the Act envisages that the Assessing Authority, if he considers necessary or expedient so to do, he can with the previous approval of the Principal Commissioner, refer the computation

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

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

1,25,25,000/- per acre, against which an amount of Rs.5 lacs in cash has been received and cheque of Rs.5 lacs has been received. Cheque no 135122. The aforesaid agreement is for a period of three months Stamp signed Ombir” 10. It is not in dispute that these two documents which the defendants call as receipts

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

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

b) a person who is a resident, except where the royalty is payable in respect of any right, property or information used or services utilised for the purposes of a business or profession carried on by such person outside India or for the purposes of making or earning any income from any source outside India ; or (c) a person

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

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

13 to 21. 14. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Advocate General and Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned Sr. Standing Counsel-III have opposed the prayer made in the writ applications and have contended that the impugned amendments made under the JVAT Act, are well within the legislative competence of the State Government and the said amendments are required to be upheld

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

13 to 21. 14. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Advocate General and Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned Sr. Standing Counsel-III have opposed the prayer made in the writ applications and have contended that the impugned amendments made under the JVAT Act, are well within the legislative competence of the State Government and the said amendments are required to be upheld

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

13 of 26 19. We have also carefully examined the judgment of the apex court in the case of K.P Verghese (supra) and we find that the judgment was rendered in a context when the transaction was entered between the strangers and the genuineness of the transaction was not doubted and the dispute was with regard to the sale consideration

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. New Bombay Goods Transport

transfer of property became taxable under Section 3(a) if the movement of goods from one State to another was under a covenant, or an incident, of the contract of sale and the property in the goods passed to the purchaser in another State. [S.R. Sarkar26]. If there was interruption of movement, and the snapping of the inextricable bond that

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Smt. Raj Kumari

Accordingly are partly allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

13. His other leg of submission is, since there is no claim by respondent no. 1 for possession within two years of dispossession pursuant to section 32 of the HTAL Act, proceeding for possession and declaration of tenancy is not maintainable. For said purpose, he refers to and relies on decision in the case of “Gangyya Khandyya Vs. Gangadhar Tanaji

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. Rangaraya Medical College Old Students Association

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

B. Prakash Rao for the following among other - on the file of the High Court. Between: M/s. Super Spinning Mills Limited, P.B. No. 71 13, Elgi Towers, 737-D, Green Fields. Fulia(ulam -Road, Coimbatore - 641 045, rep by its Chief Corporate Affairs N. Mohan Ram ...APPELLANT/PETITIONER AND 1 2 Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd. Vidyut Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad

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

b) to 1(e), the legal representatives of the original plaintiff supported the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court. He submitted that it was duly proved by the agreement (Ex.P-1) executed on the same day that no sale consideration had passed. The defendant had agreed to raise the construction of the house in lieu

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

M\S.CHENNAKESAVA VIJAYAWADA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VIJAYAWAD

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

price is not a transfer of chattel qua chattel, the contract is of work and labour. The Adjudicating authority also made a mention of the judgment of this Court in the case of All Gujarat Federation of Tax Consultants & Ors. vs. CBDT, reported in 214 ITR 276 wherein, the Gujarat High Court had followed the decision of the Bombay High

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 (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

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

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

B. Agreement of Sale, dated 23.10. 1998 and its contents in general and the ones referred to supra, are not in di1>ute. Similarly, payment/receipt of Rs 2,OO,OOO I - towards adva\nce sale consideration is not in dispute. Schedule of payment of balalce sale consideration and the default of I (v) As per clause (4) the vendors agreed

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