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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

iii) of the JVAT Act, without insertion of substituted proviso would reveal that 47 although in the aforesaid un-amended provisions also, provisions were incorporated for availing ITC in respect of “sales” falling under section 8(1) of the CST Act, 1956, but there was no provision which provided for forfeiture of the balance Input Tax paid on purchase

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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

iii) the courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. When we refer to “decision based on no evidence”, it not only refers to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to any case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding.” Date of Judgment

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

36 thereto of which the assessee is the owner, other than such portions of such property as he may occupy for the purposes of any business or profession carried on by him the profits of which are chargeable to income-tax, shall be chargeable to income-tax under the had ‘Income from house property’.” The section itself indicates that merely

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

36 l.A. NO: 1 OF 2005(WAMP. NO: 2371 OF 2005) Petition under Section 1 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the judgment under appeal pending the disposal of the above W.A. Counsel for the Appellants: SRI VENKAT CHALLA

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

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

iii) Also, it is noted that in the balance sheet attached to the income tax returns Ex.PW1/D2 as on 31.3.2007, the fixed assets of the company are shown at Rs.5,62,36,274/- and which obviously is an indication of the lands which were purchased by the plaintiff company under the sale deeds Ex.PW- 1/16 to Ex.PW1/21 and thus

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

iii). Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the Appellant had a PE in India is perverse and contrary to the facts and material on record? (iv). Whether, without prejudice, the Tribunal erred in attributing 50% of the alleged profits to the alleged PE of the Appellant in India and whether such approach and quantification was inconsistent with Article

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

III at RTO, Raipur have proved the registration certificate of the motorcycle Ex.P/62 and letter Ex.P/63. 35. PW-24 J.R. Jimwale is the Assistant Administrative Officer LIC, Dhamtari has also proved the insurance policies of appellant as well as his wife and the document Ex.P/67, Ex.P/68 and Ex.P/69. 36. PW-25 Radheshyam Pawar is the Assistant (Legal Cell), Municipal Council

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

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

iii) the 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

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

Accordingly are partly allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

III or for any other purpose. This is neither an appellate nor a revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. The High Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution exercises original jurisdiction, though the said jurisdiction shall not be confused with the ordinary civil jurisdiction of the High Court. This jurisdiction, though original in character

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.

iii) the defendant has, in pursuance of the contract, has obtained possession of the whole or any part of the land on which the building is to be constructed or other work is to be executed. Therefore, even in the case a of pure and simple building contract, in certain cases, the contract is specifically enforceable. Section 15 deals with

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

1) that the deeming provision in Section 4(2) was subject to the provisions contained in Section 3 of the CST Act. If the sale of goods fell within the ambit of Section 3(a) of the CST Act, it would then be an inter-state sale, notwithstanding that, in terms of Section 4(2)(a), the ascertained goods were

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. M/S GOLDEN STAR FACILITIES AND SERVICES PVT LTD., HYD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

36. W.P.(C) No.17240/2020 is filed by a partnership firm “Poomala Granites”, challenging Exhibit-P21 order of the Tahsildar, Thrissur, denying permission to conduct quarry in the assigned lands. Petitioner therein has contended that even though they have produced Exhibit-P11 mining sketch, WP(C). 11249/2010 & other contd cases. -:70:- it has not been countersigned by the Tahsildar, and therefore

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

36. As stated above, this court while admitting the appeal on 11-06-2013 framed the following substantial question of law: 1. Can there be a declaration that sale deed dated 16-2-1992 which is unregistered is valid and does 40 it not negate the Section 17 of the Registration Act? 2. Can there be a declaration that

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

iii. research and development costs; iv. depreciation of plant and equipment that cannot be allocated to a particular contract.” 21. The pros and cons of the CCM are discussed in para 10. Para 11.2 of AS 7 states that when a contractor uses a particular method of accounting for a contract, “then in respect of all other contracts that meet

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