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

Commissioner of Income Tax - II, vs. M/s. The Andhra Pradesh State Co-op Bank Ltd.,

Appeal is disposed of

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

price of the stock on the date of grant of such options was not allowable revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003276 ITA 564/2012 Page 2 of 5 2. During the pendency of the present appeal, the Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income

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

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

37, 38, 39 and 41. (4) Jayam and Company Vs Assistant Commissioner and Anr, reported in (2016) 15 SCC 125 (relevant paragraphs 2, 6, 16 to 19); (5) Union of India & Ors Vs N.S. Rathnam & Sons, reported in (2015) 10 SCC 681, relevant paragraph 1, 12, 13 to 21. 14. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Advocate General and Mr. Atanu Banerjee

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

37, 38, 39 and 41. (4) Jayam and Company Vs Assistant Commissioner and Anr, reported in (2016) 15 SCC 125 (relevant paragraphs 2, 6, 16 to 19); (5) Union of India & Ors Vs N.S. Rathnam & Sons, reported in (2015) 10 SCC 681, relevant paragraph 1, 12, 13 to 21. 14. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Advocate General and Mr. Atanu Banerjee

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

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

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

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 valuation of the house of the appellant. He valued the cost of the house as Rs. 3,59,000/-. The said house was constructed in the year

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

37 WRIT APPEAL NO: 1299 OF 2005 Writ Appeal under clause 1 5 of the Letters Patent filed against order dated 6- 12-2@4 and made in WP No.1'1639 of 20O4 on the file of the High Court. Between: 1 . Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd., Virlyut Soudha, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT 2. Central Power Distribution Co. of A.P. Ltd., Singareni

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

Accordingly are partly allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

transfer and, therefore, respondent no. 1 or his father had become full owner of the suit land. 37 LPA-22-2008+ 39. Aforesaid aspects show that the tahsildar had taken into account certain documents and considered the matter and rejected the application. It appears that neither the appellate nor the revisional authority has taken into account various facts and circumstances

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

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-IV vs. M/s Pokarna Limited

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

37 depend upon the object with which the act is done. It is not that no company can own property and enjoy it as property, whether by itself or by giving the use of it to another on rent. Where this happens, the appropriate head to apply is “income from property” (section 9), even though the company may be doing

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

price for sale of property sold by her husband which is western portion of Tataguni estate in favour of plaintiff-Company and she has not agreed to sell the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per acre. 17. It is further claimed that Managing Director of plaintiff-Company K.T. Bhagath was with

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

37. W.P.(C) No.8203/2021 is filed by a quarry operator, viz., M/s. Star Granites, a partnership firm, challenging Exhibit-P15 order issued by the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Thiruvananthapuram, respondent No.2 therein, dated 5.3.2021, directing to stop the quarry, if it is functioning in the assigned lands for special purposes. The contention raised by the petitioner therein is that they

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

1)(n) of the BR Act, the doing of all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the promotion or advancement of the business of the company. Thus reading of Sections 5(b), (c) and Section 6 of the BR Act along with Section 80P(2)(a) of the Act, it becomes clear that the income received

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

1)(n) of the BR Act, the doing of all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the promotion or advancement of the business of the company. Thus reading of Sections 5(b), (c) and Section 6 of the BR Act along with Section 80P(2)(a) of the Act, it becomes clear that the income received

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

1)(n) of the BR Act, the doing of all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the promotion or advancement of the business of the company. Thus reading of Sections 5(b), (c) and Section 6 of the BR Act along with Section 80P(2)(a) of the Act, it becomes clear that the income received

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

1)(n) of the BR Act, the doing of all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the promotion or advancement of the business of the company. Thus reading of Sections 5(b), (c) and Section 6 of the BR Act along with Section 80P(2)(a) of the Act, it becomes clear that the income received