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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

13. What we find from the aforesaid detailed reproduction from the order of the learned Tribunal, is that while undertaking the exercise of arriving at the ‘Arm’s Length Price’ which is essentially a matter of estimate of the fair value which the Indian Company has paid or has received from the Associate Enterprise (Foreign Company), the said exercise

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

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

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

8 usually get the sale deed registered in the name of their father, brother, wife husband and others. 16. PW-5, Praveen Kumar Gupta is the Branch Manager State Bank of India Agriculture Department Branch Jagdalpur and he issued the recurring account statement of the appellant Ex.P/10. He admitted that the account was opened on 05.11.1980 and the last entry

The Commissioner of Income TAx-IV, vs. M/s. Mahaveer Enterprises (India) Limited

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

13 of 76 C/LPA/94/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2021 RAVJIBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL SINCE DECD. THR'HEIRS V/s ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY U.L.C. entitled to get the benefit of Section 3 of the Repeal Act. However, there will be no order as to costs.” 38.2 These significant contextual facts are missing in the case in our hands where Sections

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

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

In the result, we do not find

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to paragraphs 55 and 57 of the order passed by the Tribunal and has submitted that the material was produced by the assessee before the Tribunal that the rate of interest in the previous assessment years was accepted by the revenue and therefore, the revenue could

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

8 of 26 of capital gains as Rs.14.93 Crores. Deduction under Section 54F in respect of purchase of House No.5, Golf Links, New Delhi for Rs.10.75 Crores was allowed and the balance amount of Rs.4,18,00,000/- was treated as long term capital gains. In other words, the Assessing Officer assumed the transfer price of each share of NIIT

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

transfer of suit land in favour of the defendant? OPP. 2. Whether consideration of ₹19,000/- was written in the agreement in order to meet the requirement of stamp duty as alleged? OPP. 3. Whether the defendant has failed to construct the house as per agreement? OPP. 4. If issue No.3 is proved whether the sale deed dated

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV, HYDERABAD vs. M/S NAVA BHARAT VENTURES LTD., HYDERABAD

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

transferred from Power recovery rate of Power and ed by AP TRANSCO from at the power generattng at rates varying between er contended that the CIT(A) 5 Itta 251 2014 entitled to avail deduction under Section 8O-I of the Act, 196 1 on the proht earned from the captive consumption power plant' Though the CIT has not accepted

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

8 of 41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT concession for brokerage and DD. Charges is given,  net   realizable   rate   comes   to   Rs.118/­only.     On  this   rate,   adjusted   sale   price   will   come   to  Rs.11,80,000/­ (i.e.. 10000 x 118 = 11,80,000/­)  against Rs. 11l,05,000/­as shown by the assessee.  The loss will therefore get reduced by Rs.75,000/­  consequently

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

8 of 41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT concession for brokerage and DD. Charges is given,  net   realizable   rate   comes   to   Rs.118/­only.     On  this   rate,   adjusted   sale   price   will   come   to  Rs.11,80,000/­ (i.e.. 10000 x 118 = 11,80,000/­)  against Rs. 11l,05,000/­as shown by the assessee.  The loss will therefore get reduced by Rs.75,000/­  consequently

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

8 of 41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT concession for brokerage and DD. Charges is given,  net   realizable   rate   comes   to   Rs.118/­only.     On  this   rate,   adjusted   sale   price   will   come   to  Rs.11,80,000/­ (i.e.. 10000 x 118 = 11,80,000/­)  against Rs. 11l,05,000/­as shown by the assessee.  The loss will therefore get reduced by Rs.75,000/­  consequently

Commissioner of Income tax-VI vs. M/s. Narpat Girji Constructions,

The appeal is allowed

8 - OSA No. 19 of 2015 Relevant Clauses of the Lease Agreement dated 22.01.2000:- 12. Before proceeding further, it would be apt to take note of the relevant clauses of the lease agreement dated 22.01.2000, whereby the Ex-Management of the Company in liquidation had allegedly leased the valuable land and buildings, structures and facilities, plants and machinery thereon measuring

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