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

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

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. Maruthi Movies vs. Income Tax Officer

Bench: This Court & Making The Same A Rule Of Court, Alongwith Decree Against Respondents Awarding Rs.5,35,920/- Paid By The Petitioner To The Arbitrator As Their Share Of Fees As Per Order Dated 21.12.2010. 2. Respondent No.1 Has Filed Its Objections To The Award Under Section 30 & 33 Of The Act In Form Of I.A. No.9067/2011. Respondent No.2 Has Also Filed Its Objections To The Award.

iii) the defendant has, in pursuance of the contract, has obtained possession of the whole or any part of the land on which the building is to be constructed or other work is to be executed. Therefore, even in the case a of pure and simple building contract, in certain cases, the contract is specifically enforceable. Section 15 deals with

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S The A.P.Mahesh Coop. Urban Bank Ltd,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

14) (1968) 70 ITR 86 (SC) 15) (1996) 218 ITR 438 (SC) : (1996) 2 SCC 541 16) (1998) 232 ITR

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/s. The A.P.Vardhaman(Mahila)Cooperative Urban

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

14) (1968) 70 ITR 86 (SC) 15) (1996) 218 ITR 438 (SC) : (1996) 2 SCC 541 16) (1998) 232 ITR

Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. The Agrasen Coop. Urban Bank Ltd.,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

14) (1968) 70 ITR 86 (SC) 15) (1996) 218 ITR 438 (SC) : (1996) 2 SCC 541 16) (1998) 232 ITR

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. The Andhra Bank Employees Co.Operative Bank Limited

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

14) (1968) 70 ITR 86 (SC) 15) (1996) 218 ITR 438 (SC) : (1996) 2 SCC 541 16) (1998) 232 ITR

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3 vs. M/s Satyasai Bhavani Hsopitals Private Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2) An appeal may lie under this section from an appellate decree passed ex- parte. Date of Judgment 25-06-2018 I.T.A.No.536/2015 C/w I.T.A.No.537/2015 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s. Softbrands India P. Ltd., 35/80 (3) In an appeal under this section, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved

The Commissioner of Income Tax (IT and TP) vs. M/s. Idea Cellular Limited

Accordingly, the learned appellate authority has rightly dismissed the

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

III v. ITC Limited1, Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur v. Ultratech Cement Ltd.2, Cinemax India Limited v. Union of India3 and S.A. Builders Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Chandigarh and another4 to buttress his submissions. He would further submit that insertion of Explanation 1(d) to Rule 43 of the CGST Rules by Notification No.14/2022 – Central Tax dated

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

III v. ITC Limited1, Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur v. Ultratech Cement Ltd.2, Cinemax India Limited v. Union of India3 and S.A. Builders Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Chandigarh and another4 to buttress his submissions. He would further submit that insertion of Explanation 1(d) to Rule 43 of the CGST Rules by Notification No.14/2022 – Central Tax dated

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Laila Impex,

Accordingly answered against the Revenue. The appeals fail and are dismissed, without

transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of any copyright, literary, artistic or scientific work including films or video tapes for use in connection with ITA 473/2012, 474/2012, 500/2012 & 244/2014 Page 8 television or tapes for use in connection with radio broadcasting, but not including consideration for the sale, distribution or exhibition

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

iii) the transfer or conveyance; and (iv) the price or consideration. The word 'price' is used in its ordinary sense as meaning money only. It is used in the same sense as in Section 77 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (in short, the 'Contract Act'). As has been observed by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income

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

In the result, we do not find

2) of the Act was issued on 05.10.2007. During the relevant financial year, it was observed that the assessee had international transactions exceeding Rs.15 Crores. Therefore, with prior approval of the Commissioner of Income Tax 5 (Appeals), Bangalore-I, Bangalore, a reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer to determine the arms length price as per Section 92CA