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

Section 55 (4) (b) of the Transfer of Property Act which are set out below:- "55. In the absence of a contract to the contrary the buyer and seller of immovable property respectively are subject to the liabilities, and have the rights, mentioned in the rules next following, or such of them as are applicable to the property sold

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

price component is already paid and what remains to be paid is Rs.49,80,000/-. Vouchsafing the title to property is a predominant obligation of the vendor, vide condition Nos.6, 7 & 8 in Ex.P4, is not disputed before us. Paragraph 2 stipulates that the plaintiff has to pay this amount in two installments: First installment of Rs.34

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Jayalakshmi Chits

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

27,200/­ 2Short term profits 11,03,600/­ 3Short term loss 16,88,750/­ The consolidated  figures  of sale and purchase  of shares are as under:­ Purchase Price Rs. 85,84,750/­ Sale Price Rs. 97,26,800/­ In all total 19 transactions have been done  by   assessee.   Referring   to   transaction   No.10  which is in respect of shares  of Ambuja

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S Gulf Oil Corporation Pvt. Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

27,200/­ 2Short term profits 11,03,600/­ 3Short term loss 16,88,750/­ The consolidated  figures  of sale and purchase  of shares are as under:­ Purchase Price Rs. 85,84,750/­ Sale Price Rs. 97,26,800/­ In all total 19 transactions have been done  by   assessee.   Referring   to   transaction   No.10  which is in respect of shares  of Ambuja

The Commissioner of Income Tax - VI vs. M/s. Manikanta Iron AND Hardware

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

27,200/­ 2Short term profits 11,03,600/­ 3Short term loss 16,88,750/­ The consolidated  figures  of sale and purchase  of shares are as under:­ Purchase Price Rs. 85,84,750/­ Sale Price Rs. 97,26,800/­ In all total 19 transactions have been done  by   assessee.   Referring   to   transaction   No.10  which is in respect of shares  of Ambuja

Commissioner of Income tax-VI vs. M/s. Narpat Girji Constructions,

The appeal is allowed

27 of Harihar Village and Taluk and further permit this Applicant to bid and buy these lands, in the interest of justice." 17. The learned Company Court vide ordered dated 26.07.2005 rejected the application on the statement made by the learned counsel for the Official Liquidator that the property in occupation of the applicant was not the subject matter

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

price in the absence of any evidence of understatement of the value. Therefore, the said finding recorded by the Assessing Authority was also set-aside and the appeal was allowed. 7. Aggrieved by the said order, revenue preferred an appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal held that it is an undisputed fact that the assessee had developed

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 100 CPC is directed against the common judgment and decree dated 7-10-2006 passed in R.A.Nos.33 and 35 of 2002 by the District and Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court –II, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, wherein appeal filed by the plaintiff -K.T. Plantations Private Limited in RA 3 No.33/2002 came to be allowed

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

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

27(0-4). CS(OS) No. 78/2007 Page 2 of 43 2. The case of the plaintiff is that the four defendants had equal 1/4th co-ownership rights in the suit land and which suit land was agreed to be sold for a total price of Rs.5,32,91,250/-. The total price is arrived at on the basis

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

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

27 .03.1999 to th,.e defendant and filed the current suit for recovery of possession of the suit schedule plots; damages @ Rs. 4OOO /- per month and for injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit schedule plots. On the contrary, defendant filed his written statement admitting ownership of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule plots; agreement of sale dated

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

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

Section 178 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the Chairman of the company, HVL cannot arrogate unto himself the power to cause such appointment when such power ultimately rests with the Board of Directors. The observation of the two Joint APLs that the evident performance of BCrL, the flagship company of MP Birla Group is deteriorating ever since, HVL became

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/s. Value Labs

Bench: P.KESHAVA RAO,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

27 October 2017 and has proposed the following questions for our consideration:- “(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs.12,11,000/- under Section 10A of the Act on account of unbilled revenue without considering the fact that such unbilled revenue pertained to the immediately succeeding Assessment

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

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

Accordingly are partly allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

27. The Amending Act is also liable to be struck down on yet another ground. Under Article 227(1), every High Court has superintendence over all courts and Tribunals within its territorial jurisdiction, except those which are constituted under a law relating to armed forces. This includes the power to call returns from such courts, to make and issue general

The Commissioner of Income TAx-IV, vs. M/s. Mahaveer Enterprises (India) Limited

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

price, but instead of getting a deed of conveyance gets a SA/GPA/WILL as a mode of transfer, either at the instance of the vendor or at his own instance. Ill - effects of SA/GPA/WILL transactions: Page 41 of 76 C/LPA/94/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2021 RAVJIBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL SINCE DECD. THR'HEIRS V/s ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY U.L.C. 3. The earlier order

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

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

price of goods taxable under Section 10 of the Act; ii) Transaction falling under Section 5(2), Section 6-A and Section 6(2) of the CST Act, 1956, iii) Value of transfer of a business as a whole iv) [ xxx] (iii) This sub-rule is not applicable, if the VAT dealer is making exempt transactions. 22. By comparing

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

price of goods taxable under Section 10 of the Act; ii) Transaction falling under Section 5(2), Section 6-A and Section 6(2) of the CST Act, 1956, iii) Value of transfer of a business as a whole iv) [ xxx] (iii) This sub-rule is not applicable, if the VAT dealer is making exempt transactions. 22. By comparing

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax vs. M/s. Lanco Solar Energy Pvt Ltd

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Transfer Pricing Officer)-3, Hyderabad PAN/GIR No. AABCL7372G dated 27-O1-2016. Between: The Pr. Commissioner of lncome{ax-4, Hyderabad. ...AppellanURespondent AND M/s. Lanco Solar Energy Pvt Ltd, Lanco House, Plot No.4, Software Units Layout, Madhapur, HYDERABAD-soo 081. (PAN No. AABCL 7372G) ...RespondenUAppellant lA NO: 2 OF 2019 Petition under Section