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

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

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

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

14, items A to E. Sub-section (2) of Section 56 specifically states that the incomes shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head Income from other sources. Clause (ii) of Section 56(2) provides that income from machinery, plant or furniture belonging to the assessee and let on hire, if the income is not chargeable to income

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

Section 55 (4) (b) of the Transfer of Property Act which are set out below:- "55. In the absence of a contract to the contrary the buyer and seller of immovable property respectively are subject to the liabilities, and have the rights, mentioned in the rules next following, or such of them as are applicable to the property sold

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, Guntur. vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Kangiri.

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

14) sections. These can be conveniently grouped into four categories. Section 10 enumerates incomes from various sources of various institutions and persons which shall not be included in computing the total income of a previous year of any such person/institution. In first group, Section 10 is the exclusive one. In so far as the incomes stipulated in Section

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

14) sections. These can be conveniently grouped into four categories. Section 10 enumerates incomes from various sources of various institutions and persons which shall not be included in computing the total income of a previous year of any such person/institution. In first group, Section 10 is the exclusive one. In so far as the incomes stipulated in Section

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

The appeal is allowed

14. In Clause 19 it is further provided that on the expiry of the term of the lease agreement, the demised premises shall be conveyed by the lessor to the lessee without any further financial or other compensation whatsoever, and the parties shall execute such documents or conveyance as would be required to transfer the absolute title over the demised

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

price paid or promised, or of money, a share of crops, service or any other thing of value, to be rendered periodically or on specified occasions to the transferer by the transferee, who accepts the transfer on such terms. According to the original petitioner Deorao Bajirao Thorat, it was an oral lease and the suit land was given in possession

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 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-III, HYD vs. M/S. SUJANA METALS LTD, HYD

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

price; and (ii) In any other case [not being a case falling under sub-clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-section (1) of section 49], shall be taken to be nil” ITA 549/2011 Page 11 of 16 9. This provision clearly provides determining the cost of any relation to a capital asset being the right to manufacture, produce or process

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S K.VENKATESWARA RAO

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

14 O/TAXAP/186/2003 JUDGMENT recorded in the accounts of the business of the industrial undertaking or the hotel does not correspond to the market value of such goods as on the date of the transfer, then, for the purposes of the deduction under this section, the profits and gains of the industrial undertaking or the business of the hotel shall

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s.Viskha Container Terminal Private Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Pricing Officer (TPO) vide letter dated 30.11.2009 and during the course of proceeding before the TPO, assessee vide its letter dated 09.06.2010 categorically stated that its registered office was at Hyderabad and it stood merged with Wipro Ltd., pursuant to the scheme of amalgamation approved by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide order dated 21.02.2008 and scheme of amalgamation