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 -II vs. The Agrasen Coop. Urban Bank Ltd.,

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

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

13) (1960) 39 ITR 114 (SC) : AIR 1960 SC 789 14) (1968) 70 ITR 86 (SC) 15) (1996) 218 ITR 438 (SC) : (1996) 2

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

13) (1960) 39 ITR 114 (SC) : AIR 1960 SC 789 14) (1968) 70 ITR 86 (SC) 15) (1996) 218 ITR 438 (SC) : (1996) 2

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

13) (1960) 39 ITR 114 (SC) : AIR 1960 SC 789 14) (1968) 70 ITR 86 (SC) 15) (1996) 218 ITR 438 (SC) : (1996) 2

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

13) (1960) 39 ITR 114 (SC) : AIR 1960 SC 789 14) (1968) 70 ITR 86 (SC) 15) (1996) 218 ITR 438 (SC) : (1996) 2

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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2) An appeal may lie under this section from an appellate decree passed ex- parte. Date of Judgment 25-06-2018 I.T.A.No.536/2015 C/w I.T.A.No.537/2015 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s. Softbrands India P. Ltd., 35/80 (3) In an appeal under this section, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved

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

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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2,01,250 19.2.92 40.25 9,80,000 16.1.92 Rs.4,43,750/­ c) 30,000 12,22,500 19.2.92 40.75 28 L & T 19,45,000 18.2.92 a) 10,000 194.50 21,30,000 b) 5,000 9,35,000 19.2.92 187.00 21.1.92 142.00 Rs.7,50,000/­ Total LossRs.16,88,250/­ 8.2. The   Assessing   Officer   after   verification  found that

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2,01,250 19.2.92 40.25 9,80,000 16.1.92 Rs.4,43,750/­ c) 30,000 12,22,500 19.2.92 40.75 28 L & T 19,45,000 18.2.92 a) 10,000 194.50 21,30,000 b) 5,000 9,35,000 19.2.92 187.00 21.1.92 142.00 Rs.7,50,000/­ Total LossRs.16,88,250/­ 8.2. The   Assessing   Officer   after   verification  found that

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2,01,250 19.2.92 40.25 9,80,000 16.1.92 Rs.4,43,750/­ c) 30,000 12,22,500 19.2.92 40.75 28 L & T 19,45,000 18.2.92 a) 10,000 194.50 21,30,000 b) 5,000 9,35,000 19.2.92 187.00 21.1.92 142.00 Rs.7,50,000/­ Total LossRs.16,88,250/­ 8.2. The   Assessing   Officer   after   verification  found that

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

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 (IT and TP) vs. M/s. Idea Cellular Limited

Accordingly, the learned appellate authority has rightly dismissed the

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

13 of 32 {W.P.(T)Nos.14/2021, 15/2021, 16/2021, 17/2021 & 18/2021} 14. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, following two questions arise for consideration: - 1. Whether the maintenance of township and supply of electrical energy thereof is in the course or furtherance of business in terms of Section 2(17) read with Section

Suchirindia Infratech Pvt. Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax

Accordingly, the learned appellate authority has rightly dismissed the

Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

13 of 32 {W.P.(T)Nos.14/2021, 15/2021, 16/2021, 17/2021 & 18/2021} 14. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, following two questions arise for consideration: - 1. Whether the maintenance of township and supply of electrical energy thereof is in the course or furtherance of business in terms of Section 2(17) read with Section

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