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

price bargained for. Nor has it any necessary reference to the market value of the capital asset which is the subject-matter of the transfer." The ratio was followed in Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta versus Gillanders Arbuthnot and Company, [1973] 87 ITR 407 (SC). 23. The aforesaid two decisions did not examine the proviso to Section

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

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-tax V. Motor

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-VI vs. M/s. Narpat Girji Constructions,

The appeal is allowed

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 Institution would not be recognized. It was also said that they were willing

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

21. Subsequently under the new Act Section 56(2) and (3) is inserted. In addition to that, Section 80- IA and in particular sub-sections (1) to (4) and clause (iii) are inserted. In addition to that, we have to keep in mind the Industrial Policy and the object behind giving - - 44 incentives and the objects sought to be achieved

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

Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, as under: “Sale” defined.—‘‘Sale” is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part- paid and part-promised. Sale how made.—Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion

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

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

21. I agree with the argument which is urged on behalf of the plaintiff that a notification for urbanization need not only be through a notification under Section 507 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act as the later part of Section 3(13) of the Act does not in any way require that there is only one manner of notification

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

21 - RFA No.178 OF 2015 C/W RFA CROB NO.19 OF 2015 Mere alteration to the structure of the terms of the contract is insufficient. The substitution must have the effect of completely rescinding, altering or extinguishing the previous contract vide LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs. M.M.GUPTA3. Keeping this in mind, if we peruse the terms & conditions of Exs.P2 & P4, we cannot

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

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

21 .o4.2oog in O.S. No. 131 of 2OO4 on the file of the IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, R.R. District, L.B. Nagar. Both the suits, out of which the present three Appeals are llled, are instituted on the same set of facts and contentions. Hence, all the three appeals are heard jointly and are taken

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Smt. Raj Kumari

Accordingly are partly allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

21. Learned Advocate Mr. V. D. Salunke appearing for respondents no.1A to 1E in these appeals opposes the letters patent appeals, submitting that those are not maintainable having regard to recent decision rendered by division bench of this court dated 28-02-2018 in letters patent appeal no. 90 of 2013 “Ramesh S/o Vithal Mane and others Vs. Gurling

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

M\S.CHENNAKESAVA VIJAYAWADA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VIJAYAWAD

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

price is not a transfer of chattel qua chattel, the contract is of work and labour. The Adjudicating authority also made a mention of the judgment of this Court in the case of All Gujarat Federation of Tax Consultants & Ors. vs. CBDT, reported in 214 ITR 276 wherein, the Gujarat High Court had followed the decision of the Bombay High

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

21 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 67. In paragraph 66, the Appellate Court observed that payment of compensation by defendant no.2 to defendant no.1 will have to be inferred. He submitted that the said finding, to say the least, is perverse. In short, he submitted that as the 49 / 79 CRA-322-08gr defendant no.2 did not establish

Smt.Sudia Indira vs. The Income Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal from order stand dismissed

section 54 of the  Transfer of Property Act, sale could become complete when payment of  whole price at the time of execution of sale is made.  According to her,  the price constitutes an essential ingredient of the transaction of the sale  and thus, the real test is the intention of the performance to be gathered  from the various terms

The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) vs. Madhu Enterprises

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

transferred or existent in the finished product. It has been submitted that ITC is in the nature of concession and it is well within the legislative competence of the State Government to withdraw such concession by restricting availability of ITC on certain goods. It has been submitted that withdrawal of exemption is a matter of policy and there is limited