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-II, vs. M/S Gulf Oil Corporation Pvt. Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

35,000 19.2.92 187.00 21.1.92 142.00 Rs.7,50,000/­ Total LossRs.16,88,250/­ 8.2. The   Assessing   Officer   after   verification  found that the assessee had sold the shares  prior in point of time without involving any  broker, and thereafter, purchased the shares  through   brokers.   The   Assessing   Officer  noticed that shares of Mysore Cement were not  sold   at   the   prevailing   market   price

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

35,000 19.2.92 187.00 21.1.92 142.00 Rs.7,50,000/­ Total LossRs.16,88,250/­ 8.2. The   Assessing   Officer   after   verification  found that the assessee had sold the shares  prior in point of time without involving any  broker, and thereafter, purchased the shares  through   brokers.   The   Assessing   Officer  noticed that shares of Mysore Cement were not  sold   at   the   prevailing   market   price

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

35,000 19.2.92 187.00 21.1.92 142.00 Rs.7,50,000/­ Total LossRs.16,88,250/­ 8.2. The   Assessing   Officer   after   verification  found that the assessee had sold the shares  prior in point of time without involving any  broker, and thereafter, purchased the shares  through   brokers.   The   Assessing   Officer  noticed that shares of Mysore Cement were not  sold   at   the   prevailing   market   price

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

The appeal is allowed

price of the said land and buy the scheduled property situated in 6.3 acres, immediately. 19. Prayer was sought for a direction to the Official Liquidator to sell the said 6.3 acres of schedule property wherein the Institution of the KIAMS is situated by accepting the amount stated therein. 20. Company Court vide order dated 30.09.2008 took note

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

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

price, and since all of these aspects are found in the two documents dated 25.9.2006 Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2, hence I hold that these documents are complete contracts under the Indian Contract Act. CS(OS) No. 78/2007 Page 11 of 43 12(i) The argument urged on behalf of the learned counsel for the defendants that these documents cannot be said

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

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

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

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

price of goods. The manner of 49 calculation of ITC was entirely different before this amendment. In the example, which has been given in the earlier part of the judgment, “dealer” was entitled to ITC of Rs. 10 on resale, which was paid by the dealer as VAT while purchasing the goods from the vendors. However, in view of Section

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

price of goods. The manner of 49 calculation of ITC was entirely different before this amendment. In the example, which has been given in the earlier part of the judgment, “dealer” was entitled to ITC of Rs. 10 on resale, which was paid by the dealer as VAT while purchasing the goods from the vendors. However, in view of Section

The Commissioner of income Tax-III, vs. M/S Raj Breeders and Hatcheries [Pvt.] Ltd.,

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.04.2011 on the following substantial questions of law: i) Whether the stocks transferred on cost price can be assessed to tax on a notional price? ii) Whether the assessee has the right to fix the price of the stock and transfer

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA vs. M/S. PADMAVATHI MANSION (P) LTD., VIJAYAWADA

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

Transfer Pricing Adjustments’ made by the concerned authorities below. We consider it appropriate to quote Date of Judgment 05-07-2018 I.T.A.No 700/2017. The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax, CIT (A) & Anr. Vs. M/s. Global E-Business Operations Pvt. Ltd., 7/15 from the order of Tribunal rejecting the Application seeking a review before Tribunal as hereunder:- “7.3 We have considered

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

35 LPA-22-2008+ surrender of tenancy and since such period tenant had not been in possession. It has been referred to that date for section 38E notification is 01-02-1957 and from the record, it was found that respondent no. 1's name had not been declared as owner giving an indication of surrender of tenancy rights

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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

35 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. very Act, based on which the plaintiff was told that he could not get conveyance of the property agreed to be sold to him, the owner of excess land obtains exemption and continues in possession of property and perhaps

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/S.B.KRISHNA MURTHY KAKINADA AND 2 ORS

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act, but the term “royalty” as defined and covered under Art VIII A of the DTAA. 7. Before we examine the relevant clauses of agreement dated 11th May, 1987 between HCL and ADC, it would be first appropriate to examine the ambit and scope of the term „royalty‟ taxable under Article VIIIA

Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

transfer is, therefore, not vitiated by lis pendence. Section 52 of the Act does not wipe out the transaction altogether. 5.PrinciplegroundsofcontentioninC.C.C.A.No.186 of 2O11 are as under:- TheLowerCourtfailedtoseethatRespondentsl to 11 and 14 (Vendors) failed to comply with the condition of obtaining NOC under IT Act, which was mandatory on the date of the agreement of sale Ex. A3 and filing

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agrilcultural Market Committee

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

transfer is, therefore, not vitiated by lis pendence. Section 52 of the Act does not wipe out the transaction altogether. 5.PrinciplegroundsofcontentioninC.C.C.A.No.186 of 2O11 are as under:- TheLowerCourtfailedtoseethatRespondentsl to 11 and 14 (Vendors) failed to comply with the condition of obtaining NOC under IT Act, which was mandatory on the date of the agreement of sale Ex. A3 and filing