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

16(1) of the CGST Act, has not been defined in the CGST Act and it may be referred to the activities which are integrally related to the business activity and not welfare activity. The appellate authority has held that the provision of electricity for the consumption of the residents of township is nothing but a prerequisite relying upon

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

transferred in the AY 1999-2000, the appellant-assessee would not have been entitled to benefit under Section 54F of the Act on sale of 100000 NIIT shares to M/s GIPL as per the ITA Nos. 405/2005, 406/2005 & 389/2007 Page 16 of 26 findings approved and recorded by the tribunal i.e., the assessee being owner of an existing house

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

16. Sale is defined as being a transfer of ownership for a price. In a sale, there is an absolute transfer of all rights in the properties sold. No rights are left in the transferor. The price is fixed by the contract antecedent to the conveyance. Price is the essence of a contract of sale. There is only one mode

The Commissioner of Income Tax-V vs. The Armed Forces Officers Co.Op Housing Society Ltd

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

price per acre (4 bighas 16 biswas or 4,840 sq yds) being 1,25,25,000/-. Plaintiff under the two Agreements to Sell dated 25.9.2006 paid a sum of Rs.40 lacs. A further amount of Rs.13 lacs was paid by the plaintiff to the defendants on 5.10.2006 which was acknowledged by means of a Receipt dated 10.10.2006. In terms

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

16,38,462/­ and in the  note   total   business   loss   to   be   carried  forward to asst. year 1993­94 are computed  at Rs.6,91,502/­. 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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

16,38,462/­ and in the  note   total   business   loss   to   be   carried  forward to asst. year 1993­94 are computed  at Rs.6,91,502/­. 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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

16,38,462/­ and in the  note   total   business   loss   to   be   carried  forward to asst. year 1993­94 are computed  at Rs.6,91,502/­. 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

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

The appeal is allowed

16. Company Application No.413 /2005 in Company Petition No. 166/2001: The KIAMS filed the aforesaid application on 05.05.2005 under Section 446 and 531(A) of the Companies Act r/w Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, seeking for stay of the sale proceedings of the property in question. It was further prayed that applicants be permitted

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-IV vs. M/s Pokarna Limited

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 80IA(8) requiring adoption of market value of goods in place of the actual - - 15 sale price in the cases of certain specified sales, and the transfer pricing rules, it held the Assessing Authority does not have the power to substitute the value for the actual sale price in the absence of any evidence of understatement of the value

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

16-02-1992 which is marked as Ex.P1 before the trial court. 73. The term ‘Sale’ is defined under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, as under: “Sale” defined.—‘‘Sale” is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price

Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

transfer is, therefore, not vitiated by lis pendence. Section 52 of the Act does not wipe out the transaction altogether. 5.PrinciplegroundsofcontentioninC.C.C.A.No.186 of 2O11 are as under:- TheLowerCourtfailedtoseethatRespondentsl to 11 and 14 (Vendors) failed to comply with the condition of obtaining NOC under IT Act, which was mandatory on the date of the agreement of sale Ex. A3 and filing

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agrilcultural Market Committee

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

transfer is, therefore, not vitiated by lis pendence. Section 52 of the Act does not wipe out the transaction altogether. 5.PrinciplegroundsofcontentioninC.C.C.A.No.186 of 2O11 are as under:- TheLowerCourtfailedtoseethatRespondentsl to 11 and 14 (Vendors) failed to comply with the condition of obtaining NOC under IT Act, which was mandatory on the date of the agreement of sale Ex. A3 and filing

Smt.Sudia Indira vs. The Income Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal from order stand dismissed

16. Lastly, learned advocate Ms. Mehta relied on decision in case of  Vidhyadhar (supra) so as to submit that according to section 54 of the  Transfer of Property Act, sale could become complete when payment of  whole price

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

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

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

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