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

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

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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1) (d) of the Act. Section 254 of the Act empowers the Appellate Tribunal to pass such orders on the appeals ‘as it thinks fit’ after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 38. From the aforesaid Scheme of assessment with regard to international transactions, it is clear that the process of determination of ‘Arm’s Length Price

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

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

13) of the Act taking such land as outside the operation of the Act. 23. I therefore reject the argument urged on behalf of the defendants that Agreements to Sell dated 25.9.2006 are barred by Sections 33 and 42 of the Act. Issue no.3 is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Issue no.4

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

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

c) a person who is a non-resident, 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 in India or for the purposes of making or earning any income from any source in India : Provided that nothing contained

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

c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short „the Act‟). This appeal, vide order dated 16th July, 2008, was directed to be listed along with ITA Nos.405/2005 and 406/2005 without a substantial question of law being framed. ITA Nos. 405/2005, 406/2005 & 389/2007 Page 3 of 26 3. The assessee for the AY 1998-99 had filed his return

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. Maruthi Movies vs. Income Tax Officer

Bench: This Court & Making The Same A Rule Of Court, Alongwith Decree Against Respondents Awarding Rs.5,35,920/- Paid By The Petitioner To The Arbitrator As Their Share Of Fees As Per Order Dated 21.12.2010. 2. Respondent No.1 Has Filed Its Objections To The Award Under Section 30 & 33 Of The Act In Form Of I.A. No.9067/2011. Respondent No.2 Has Also Filed Its Objections To The Award.

13 of the agreement, the parties have agreed that the contractor would construct a building at the premises consisting of “residential apartments of various sizes and denomination” in the said building complex in accordance with plans sanctioned by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation and the owner shall convey the proportionate share in the land to the respective buyers. Clause

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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

C,ompany of A-P.' Ltd., Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad rep by Chairman and Managing Director l6 3. Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation Ltd., #2O1,2nd Floor, My Home Sarovar Plaza Secretariat Road, Hyderabad rep by Managing Director ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS t.A. NOrlo F 2005 MP. NO: 84 OF 2005) Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances

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

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

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

c) 3.d instalment of Rs.3,81,750 l- ort 23.O4.1999 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

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

price of khair wood. 4. It is the petitioner’s case that, since the Corporation issued bills in their favour and provided them a transit pass to transport khair wood from their Chiriyapur Depot in the State of Uttarakhand to the petitioner’s address at Nazibabad in the State of Uttar Pradesh, it was evident that the goods moved from

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/s. The A.P.Vardhaman(Mahila)Cooperative Urban

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

1)(n) of the BR Act, the doing of all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the promotion or advancement of the business of the company. Thus reading of Sections 5(b), (c) and Section 6 of the BR Act along with Section 80P(2)(a) of the Act, it becomes clear that the income received

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S The A.P.Mahesh Coop. Urban Bank Ltd,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

1)(n) of the BR Act, the doing of all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the promotion or advancement of the business of the company. Thus reading of Sections 5(b), (c) and Section 6 of the BR Act along with Section 80P(2)(a) of the Act, it becomes clear that the income received

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. The Andhra Bank Employees Co.Operative Bank Limited

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

1)(n) of the BR Act, the doing of all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the promotion or advancement of the business of the company. Thus reading of Sections 5(b), (c) and Section 6 of the BR Act along with Section 80P(2)(a) of the Act, it becomes clear that the income received