S.l. Shiva Raj vs. Commissioner of Income Tax,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

price of goods taxable under Section 10 of the Act; ii) Transaction falling under Section 5(2), Section 6-A and Section 6(2) of the CST Act, 1956, iii) Value of transfer of a business as a whole iv) [ xxx] (iii) This sub-rule is not applicable, if the VAT dealer is making exempt transactions. 22. By comparing

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

In the result, we do not find

Transfer Pricing Officer has not examined the controversy in detail in the earlier years and the determination of arms length price is independent in each of the assessment year and recorded a perverse finding? (3) Whether the Tribunal committed an error in not appreciating the fact that loans or external commercial borrowings between the cross border entities resulting

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

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

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

18 will make the sale deed void. This reasoning is not correct. The learned First Appellate Court had itself noticed the definition of the sale in para 21 of its judgment and proceeded to hold in para 22 that the sale is the transfer of the ownership from the vendor to the vendee for the price paid or partly paid

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

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

18-6-1992 64. At this stage, it is necessary to mention, Section 34 and 35 of the Indian Registration Act, which read as under: “34. Enquiry before registration by registering officer.—(l) Subject to the provisions contained in this Part and in sections 41, 43, 45, 69, 75, 77, 88 and 89, no document shall be registered under this

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

The appeal is allowed

18. The Company Application No.188/2005 in Company Petition No.166/2001: The aforesaid application was filed by KIAMS on 04.03.2008 under Section 457 of the Companies Act r/w Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules. In Paragraph 11 of the said application, KIAMS submitted that the it would be constrained to get the property transferred into their name immediately, failing which

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

18. The aforesaid ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jambu Rao Satappa Kocheri (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the present case inasmuch as taking that Section 33 of the Act applies even to an agreement to sell, though it does not because it applies only to a sale deed

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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

18. So long as the provision declaring the transfer under sec. 5(3) as void is subject to the right to move for exemption, obtain exemption and transfer the property, the power of an owner of vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit to 'alienate' such land is dormant in him and such power could be exercised

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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

18 - RFA No.178 OF 2015 C/W RFA CROB NO.19 OF 2015 bearing No.786344 dated 5.4.2004 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (toward additional amount); all the cheques are drawn in favour of 1st defendant. However, she did not enter the witness box and no explanation is offered for herself not deposing as a witness; DW.1 has specifically stated that

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

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

18'15 OF 2008) I a HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA A.S. Nos. 172 AND 4O3 of2OO3 AND A.S.No. 692 of 2OOa COMMON JUDGMENT: A.S. Nos. 172 ar,.d 403 of 2003 are against the order dated 21.1i.2OO2 in O.S. No. 96 of 1999 on the lile of the V Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, R.R. District

The Commissioner of Income -Tax - III, vs. Shri Taher Ali

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

18 and 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as also decision of Calcutta High Court in the case of A.E.G.Carapiet Vs A.Y. Derderian, AIR 1961 Calcutta 359 and in particular paragraphs 9 and 10 thereof, to contend that failure to put the important and crucial part of the case to the witnesses coming to prove testamentary capacity must

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA vs. M/S. PADMAVATHI MANSION (P) LTD., VIJAYAWADA

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

18. XXXXXX 19. In the instant case, if the deductions on freight, telecommunication and insurance attributable to the delivery of computer software under Section 10A of the IT Act are allowed only in Export Turnover but not from the Total Turnover then, it would give rise to inadvertent, unlawful, meaningless and illogical result which Date of Judgment

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

transferred outside India and the payments were also received outside India. It was pointed out that several activities relating to marketing and sales took place in India. Expatriates from GEII along with employees of GEIIPL constituting the Indian team were mostly involved and participated in the negotiation of prices. These price negotiations took place in India. The Indian customers discussed