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

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

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

151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to grant interim injunction against the respondents herein or any body claiming through them from alienating or creating any third party interests in the property forming part of suit schedule in suit o.s.No

Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of executing the order dated 08.02.2011 passed in Ep.No.9/2004 in OS.No.672l1986 on the file of the lX Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above appeal. Counsel

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agrilcultural Market Committee

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

151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of executing the order dated 08.02.2011 passed in Ep.No.9/2004 in OS.No.672l1986 on the file of the lX Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above appeal. Counsel

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-4 vs. M/s. Lanco Solar Energy Pvt. Limited

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Section 2604 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 arising out of the order of the lncome-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'B' Hyderabad, in S.A.No.111lHydl2019 in ITA No.18B2lHydl2o17, for Assessment Year 2013-14 dated 30-04-2019 preferred against the Order of the Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax (Transfer Pricing Officer)-3, Hyderabad, PAN.No.AABCL7372G, dated

ALBANY MOLECULAR REASEARCH HYDERABAD vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The Appeal is dismissed as withdrarvn

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

Transfer Pricing-ll' PAN/GlR.No.AAAFCA1469D dated 25.06.2013. Between: Albany tVlolecular Reasearch Hyderabad, Research Centre Pvt. Ltd, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT AND The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle-1 (1), Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT r.A.NO.1 0F 2021 Petition Under Section 151

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 Pr. Commissioner of Income tax (Central), vs. Sri Vaishnavi Educational Society,

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.51929/2014 C/W W.P.Nos.42063/2012, 30494/2013, 42671/2013, 638/2014, 797/2014, 1089/2014, 3211/2014, 3389/2014, 6180/2014, 10356/2014, 12014/2014, 12015/2014, 13043/2014, 13045/2014, 13206/2014, 13207/2014, 13398/2014, 13774/2014, 14149/2014, 14161/2014, 14494/2014, 14502/2014, 14521/2014, 14689/2014, 16646/2014, 17051/2014, 17594/2014, 19729/2014, 21158/2014, 23897/2014, 28861/2014, 30731/2014, 31723/2014, 33774/2014, 33777/2014, 34084/2014, 34259/2014, 34272/2014, 34391/2014, 35204/2014, 35243/2014, 35247/2014, 35305/2014, 35609/2014, 36164/2014, 36166/2014, 36489/2014, 36525/2014, 36971/2014, 37446/2014, 38055/2014, 38463/2014, 38471/2014, 38472/2014, 38661/2014, 38753/2014, 39383/2014, 39633/2014, 39832/2014, 40204/2014, 40379/2014, 41394/2014, 41422/2014, 41427/2014, 41428/2014, 41858/2014, 43815/2014, 43963/2014, 44306/2014, 44527/2014, 44742/2014, 44835/2014, 45486/2014, 46766/2014, 47103/2014, 47105/2014, 47106/2014, 47107/2014, 47608/2014, 47731/2014, 47821/2014, 47860/2014, 47913/2014, 48577/2014, 48880/2014, 49567/2014, 50260/2014, 50533/2014, 51294/2014, 51930/2014, 51931/2014, 51932/2014, 52760/2014, 53854/2014, 54059/2014, 54083/2014, 54236/2014

SECTION 19(1) OF THE BDA ACT I.E., ANNEX-P, IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONER IN SY.NO.30/6 & 30/7, K. NARAYANAPURA VILLAGE, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, MEASURING 22 GUNTAS AND 26 GUNTAS RESPECTIVELY. IN W.P.NO.55081/2014: BETWEEN: MR N. R. VENKATESHMURTHY S/O SRI. RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE NO.5

M/s. Canara Securities Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO,T.AMARNATH GOUD

Section 178 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the Chairman of the company, HVL cannot arrogate unto himself the power to cause such appointment when such power ultimately rests with the Board of Directors. The observation of the two Joint APLs that the evident performance of BCrL, the flagship company of MP Birla Group is deteriorating ever since, HVL became

The commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s Lanco Kondapalli Power (P) Ltd

151 C) Submissions of parties……………………………...155 i. Submission of Petitioners……………..……..155 ii. Submissions of Respondents……...…………160 D) Analysis….………………………………………….164 E) Conclusion……………………………….…………197 The Challenge: 1. These Petitions assail the imposition, levy and collection of Stamp Duty by the 1st Respondent-State of Maharashtra on Delivery Orders (DO) under Article 29 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, (MSA) where the supply