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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) or Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) which comprises of three Commissioners and the Revenue or the assessee may feel dissatisfied, because of the reversal or modification of such findings by the Tribunal resulting in leaving out of certain comparables or adding on of certain comparables for determining the ‘Arm’s Length Price’ in the hands

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

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

23 of 26 Company Private Limited, [1986] 159 ITR 71 (SC), which observes that the provision would apply only when there was consideration and which consideration actually received was more than the consideration disclosed or declared. Further, onus was on the Revenue to prove under-statement of the said consideration. Section 52 was not meant to apply to tax capital

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

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

price paid by the customer to the assessee and states that this is disproportionately high in comparison to the cost incurred by the assessee for the transponder. This according to the AO lead to an inference that the customers are compensating the assessee for not only the transponder cost but also the cost of the satellite. The AO did this

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

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

1) or (3)a of Section-5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and ii) Inter-state sales of taxable goods falling within the scope of Section 3 of the CST Act, but shall not include: i) Purchase price of goods taxable under Section 10 of the CST Act; ii) Transaction falling under Section 5(2), Section

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1) or (3)a of Section-5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and ii) Inter-state sales of taxable goods falling within the scope of Section 3 of the CST Act, but shall not include: i) Purchase price of goods taxable under Section 10 of the CST Act; ii) Transaction falling under Section 5(2), Section

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

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

23. I therefore reject the argument urged on behalf of the defendants that Agreements to Sell dated 25.9.2006 are barred by Sections 33 and 42 of the Act. Issue no.3 is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Issue no.4 24. The next issue to be decided is issue no.4 as to whether plaintiff has been

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.

23 “6. Whether the Claimant is entitled to specific performance of the Agreement dated 21.8.1985 and if so, what directions are required to be given in this regard? 7. In case specific performance cannot, for any reason be granted, whether the Claimant is entitled to damages/compensation as claimed in Part III of the Statement of Claim?” 52. The Arbitrator considered

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/s Padmapriya Real Estates AND Financiers

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment passed by

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

23. PW-12, S.P. Sahu Assistant Grade-III has proved the document Ex.P/39 which is document with respect to the salary of the appellant for the period in between 07.04.1982 to 08.08.1983. 24. PW-13, Parmanand Sahu, has proved the posting order of the appellant Ex.P/14. 25. PW-14, Deepak Kumar is the witness to the sale deed which

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), vs. M/s Country Club Inda Limited

1. Nortel Networks India International Inc. (hereafter ‗the Assessee‘) has preferred the present appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‗the Act‘) against orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter ‗ITAT‘). ITA Nos. 669/2014, 671/2014 and 672/2014 are appeals preferred by the Assessee against a common ITA 666/2014 & Ors. Page 4 of 57 order

Commissioner of Income-Tax, vs. Rangaraya Medical College Old Students Association

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

C,ompany of A-P.' Ltd., Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad rep by Chairman and Managing Director l6 3. Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation Ltd., #2O1,2nd Floor, My Home Sarovar Plaza Secretariat Road, Hyderabad rep by Managing Director ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS t.A. NOrlo F 2005 MP. NO: 84 OF 2005) Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. New Bombay Goods Transport

price of khair wood. 4. It is the petitioner’s case that, since the Corporation issued bills in their favour and provided them a transit pass to transport khair wood from their Chiriyapur Depot in the State of Uttarakhand to the petitioner’s address at Nazibabad in the State of Uttar Pradesh, it was evident that the goods moved from

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

Accordingly are partly allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

C) Indubai Subhanrao Waghmare, Age : 35 years, Occu : Household, R/o At Post Ratnapur, Tq. Washi, Dist. Osmanabad 1(D) Nandubai Sandipan Salve, Age : 45 years, Occu : Household, R/o Hasegaon (Kes), Tq. Kallam, Dist. Osmanabad 1(E) Dadarao S/o Bhanudas Ingale, Age : 40 years, Occu : Agri., R/o Shelka Dhanora, Tq. Kallam, Dist. Osmanabad 6 LPA-22-2008+ 2. The Tahsildar, Kallam

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

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

c) 3.d instalment of Rs.3,81,750 l- ort 23.O4.1999 B. Agreement of Sale, dated 23.10. 1998 and its contents in general and the ones referred to supra, are not in di1>ute. Similarly, payment/receipt of Rs 2,OO,OOO I - towards adva\nce sale consideration is not in dispute. Schedule of payment of balalce sale consideration

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

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 or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument. 1In the case of tangible immoveable property of a value

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s Pokarna Limited

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

c) or a Growth Centre under the Growth Centre Scheme of the Government of India. The various incentives on tax exemptions were extended under the Scheme to the developers. 16. In exercise of powers conferred by section 295 read with clause (iii) of sub-section (4) of section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Central Board

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