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

Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

201 1 : Appeal filed Under Section 96 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 04.02.201 1 passed in O.S.No. 2 of 1999 on the file of the lX Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Between: 1. SARANGA KRISHNA MURTHY (Died per LR's RR3 to 6), S/o. LAte Laxmi Narayana Business R/o. H.No

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agrilcultural Market Committee

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

201 1 : Appeal filed Under Section 96 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 04.02.201 1 passed in O.S.No. 2 of 1999 on the file of the lX Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Between: 1. SARANGA KRISHNA MURTHY (Died per LR's RR3 to 6), S/o. LAte Laxmi Narayana Business R/o. H.No

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

price of the jewellery stolen in a robbery or a burglary was therefore expenditure for the purpose of the business. There can be no doubt that the expenditure was wholly and exclusively in the interest of the business. The expenditure was laid out for no other purpose.” 33. Applying the law explained by the Supreme Court in the above decisions

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

price of the jewellery stolen in a robbery or a burglary was therefore expenditure for the purpose of the business. There can be no doubt that the expenditure was wholly and exclusively in the interest of the business. The expenditure was laid out for no other purpose.” 33. Applying the law explained by the Supreme Court in the above decisions

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

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

1 and 2 companies and certain other individuals as Directors of 4 listed companies, 3 subsidiaries of one listed company and an unlisted company is bad in law since the Joint APLs merely represents the estate of PDB and thus, had no rights to seek appointment of Directors in companies in which PDB was not a "Member". Further, without prejudice

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

1. STATE OF KARNTAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001 2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE-560020 3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE-560020 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.V. SHASHIKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI. M.N. RAMANJANEYA GOWDA, ADVOCATE

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri. B. Venkatesam,

The appeal stands disposed of with no order as to

transfer of ownership of imported ITA No.41/2000 Page 9 of 24 material, the appellant became obliged to make payment for the same to the importers. It was submitted that the additional custom duty is an incident of import and the said statutory liability is to be discharged by the importers only. It is submitted that the liability of the appellant

V.C. NANNAPANENI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

In the result, the appeals are allowed

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

transfer, it has been agreed that NATCO GROUP shall not carry on directly or 6 (1993) 201 ITR 866 (SC) 7 (1986) 160 ITR 674 (SC) CVNR, J & TA, J ITTAs 159 & 160/2005 12 indirectly the business hitherto in the “Territory” specified in the agreement. The agreement defined the word “Products”, as described in Annexure-I and the word “Territory

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

1-2-oswp-1494-2023-J+.docx a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its corporate office at "BKT House", C/15, Trade World, Kamala Mills Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. …Petitioner ~ versus ~ 1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Department of Registration and Stamps, Ministry of Revenue, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai

THE PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. AUTOMATIC DATA SOLUTIONS AND TECHNOLOGY

Bench: SUREPALLI NANDA,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 260-A of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'A', Hyderabad in lTA.No.433/Hydl2015 for assessment year 2010-1 1 dated 28.02.2017 preferred against the order of the Additional Commissioner of lncome Tax (Transfer Pricing), Hyderabad PAN No.AAACW2655C dated 29.11.2013 preferred against the order of the Deputy Commissioner