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-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

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 bargained for. Nor has it any necessary reference to the market value of the capital asset which is the subject-matter of the transfer." The ratio was followed in Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta versus Gillanders Arbuthnot and Company, [1973] 87 ITR 407 (SC). 23. The aforesaid two decisions did not examine the proviso to Section

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

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

The appeal is allowed

15. The Questions for consideration:- a. Whether the lease deed executed by the Ex-Management of the Company in liquidation is a fraud played by the Ex-Management on shareholders, creditors (secured and unsecured) and against the public interests? b. Whether the lease deed was void abinitio, entered by the Ex-Management of the Company in liquidation to a related

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

15. In paragraph 12 of the assessment order  it has been mentioned by Assessing Officer  that according to the assessment order for  Asst.   Year   1991­92   read   with   order   under  section 154 there is no carry forward loss,  therefore, no set off of the same is given.” 9.4. Referring to the above facts which are not in  dispute, it was submitted

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

15. In paragraph 12 of the assessment order  it has been mentioned by Assessing Officer  that according to the assessment order for  Asst.   Year   1991­92   read   with   order   under  section 154 there is no carry forward loss,  therefore, no set off of the same is given.” 9.4. Referring to the above facts which are not in  dispute, it was submitted

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

15. In paragraph 12 of the assessment order  it has been mentioned by Assessing Officer  that according to the assessment order for  Asst.   Year   1991­92   read   with   order   under  section 154 there is no carry forward loss,  therefore, no set off of the same is given.” 9.4. Referring to the above facts which are not in  dispute, it was submitted

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

transfer of a capital asset, Section 80IA(8) requiring adoption of market value of goods in place of the actual - - 15 sale price

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

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 Commisioner of Income TAx-1 vs. Divya Shakti Granites Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 52 broadly enacts the English doctrine of lis pendens which does not depend upon notice/knowledge of litigation or consideration for the transfer. This view is reiterated by 12 (1857) 1 De G&J 566 - 52 - RFA No.178 OF 2015 C/W RFA CROB NO.19 OF 2015 the Apex Court decision in SHINGARA SINGH vs. DALJIT SINGH13. For the first time

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-III vs. Smt. Raj Kumari

Accordingly are partly allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

transfer and, therefore, respondent no. 1 or his father had become full owner of the suit land. 37 LPA-22-2008+ 39. Aforesaid aspects show that the tahsildar had taken into account certain documents and considered the matter and rejected the application. It appears that neither the appellate nor the revisional authority has taken into account various facts and circumstances

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

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

transfer has not been completed in the manner prescribed therefor by the law for the time being in force, ttre transferor or any person claiming under him shall be debarred from I 1i enforcing against the transferee and persons claiming under him any right in respect of the property of which the tuansferee has taken or continued in possession, other

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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

15. In the facts of the present case, it is an admitted position, which also finds support in the declaration filed Page 29 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. under Section 6 of the Act, that the land in question situated in Van Shree Cooperative Housing

PR COMMR OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. K RAVINDER REDDY, HYDERABAD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

transfer to other entities. In terms of the application made to RBI and permission obtained, the liaison office was to act as a communication channel between the head office and the customers in India. The assessees did not file returns of income for any year. 5. A survey under Section 133A of the Act was conducted

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