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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1 SCC 673, comparing the provisions of Section 260-A of the Act with Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in the absence of demonstrated perversity in the findings of the Tribunal, the Court cannot interfere and a finding of fact may give rise to a substantial question of law, only

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

V) If the answer to issue No. (IV) is in affirmative, whether in absence of machinery provision for giving effect to the amendments made in section 18(4)(ii) and 18(4)(iii) of the JVAT Act, upto 16.2.2017, the said provisions are unworkable and cannot be acted upon. Questions No. I and II 25. We have already

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

V) If the answer to issue No. (IV) is in affirmative, whether in absence of machinery provision for giving effect to the amendments made in section 18(4)(ii) and 18(4)(iii) of the JVAT Act, upto 16.2.2017, the said provisions are unworkable and cannot be acted upon. Questions No. I and II 25. We have already

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

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

v) Certified copies of sale deeds showing purchase of various lands by the plaintiff in around the vicinity of the suit land/village Goela Khurd as Ex.PW-1/16 to Ex.PW1/21 for showing payments made by the plaintiff for purchase of these lands of an amount of about Rs.5.20 crores. (vi) Bank account of the plaintiff/Company in the Citibank showing

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

transferred to other Nortel Group Companies including the Assessee. 16. The AO was of the view that the Assessee had been incorporated solely with the sole motive to evade the taxes arising out of supply contract in India and in substance, the contracts were performed by Nortel Canada along with its LO and Nortel India, who acted in unison

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-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

36. PW-25 Radheshyam Pawar is the Assistant (Legal Cell), Municipal Council, Dhamtari proved the sanction letter of map for construction of the house which is Ex.P/73. 37. PW-26, Tilakram who has taken the unnumbered FIR from Lokayukta, Raipur to Bhopal for numbered FIR which is Ex.P/74. 38. PW-27, Rambharos Soni is the SDO (PWD) has done

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-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

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

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

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

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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

v. Urban Land Tribunal (Supra) rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.1458 of 2015, decided on 1.12.2016, will also not apply to the facts of the present case and is of little help to the Appellants –Petitioners before us. The rival contentions of the Appellants – Petitioners and the State, as noted by the Coordinate Division Bench in the case of Mamtaben

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-III vs. Smt. Raj Kumari

Accordingly are partly allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

36 LPA-22-2008+ deprived of his right of declaration due to oral surrender of tenancy pleaded by appellant without evidence. Possession of land holders is considered not to be referable to section 32(2). The appeal had been allowed, declaring respondent no. 1 to be owner to the extent of 7 Hectare and 77 Are, setting aside additional tahsildar

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

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 Act. 7. The factual position needs a reference for the application of the legal position, Muralidhar Mohanty (D.W. 4) is the husband of defendant No. 1. From his evidence it is revealed that on 7.6.1982 his wife defendant No. 1 sold the land to plaintiffs. At 7 p.m. that day they returned home from

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