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

256(1) of the Act. Ruling on the scope of the said provision, the Division Bench of the Supreme Court observed that, “when a question of law is neither raised before the Tribunal nor considered by it, will not be a question arising out of the order of the Tribunal and the High Court will be acting beyond its jurisdiction

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

256(1) of the Act. Ruling on the scope of the said provision, the Division Bench of the Supreme Court observed that, “when a question of law is neither raised before the Tribunal nor considered by it, will not be a question arising out of the order of the Tribunal and the High Court will be acting beyond its jurisdiction

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

256(1) of the Act. Ruling on the scope of the said provision, the Division Bench of the Supreme Court observed that, “when a question of law is neither raised before the Tribunal nor considered by it, will not be a question arising out of the order of the Tribunal and the High Court will be acting beyond its jurisdiction

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

256(1) of the Act. Ruling on the scope of the said provision, the Division Bench of the Supreme Court observed that, “when a question of law is neither raised before the Tribunal nor considered by it, will not be a question arising out of the order of the Tribunal and the High Court will be acting beyond its jurisdiction

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

256 11. (2009) 12 SCC 735 12. AIR 2005 SC 2891 13. (2005) 4 SCC 272 14. (2006) 4 SCC 772 15. (2004) 7 SCC 377 16. (2005) 7 SCC 396 17. (2004) 11 SCC 801 18. (2011) 12 SCC 499; 19. (1969) 2 SCR 253 20. (2004) 11 SCC 798 21. (1994) Supp

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s. Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Ltd.,

256; Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin & Anr. (2012) 8 SCC 148; Satyawati Sharma Vs. Union of India 2008 (5) SCC 587; Anil Bajaj & Ors. Vs. Vinod Ahuja 2014 (210) DLT 58; Naresh Kumar and Suresh Kumar Vs. Mahesh Chand RC.REV.95/2012; Dhannalal Vs. Kalavati (2002) 6 SCC 16; Mattulal Vs. Radhe Lal 1974 AIR SC 1596; Raj Kumar Khaitan

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S K.VENKATESWARA RAO

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

256 of 2000 and dated 12.03.2014 passed in Tax Appeal No. 1468 of 2006 and allied matters. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Karnal Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd reported in 243 ITR 2 (SC). 5. Mr. Manish Bhatt, learned Senior Advocate appearing with

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Hyderabad House Pvt Ltd.,

price index for industrial workers [CPI (IW)]. The view in Kamla Devi (supra) was followed in a number of subsequent decisions of this Court in cases reported as Ashwani Gupta v. Government of India & Ors. 117 (2005) DLT 112; Tasleema v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. ILR (2009) 6 Del 486 : (2009) 161 DLT 660 (DB); Nagrik Sangarsh Samiti