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

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

41, 43, 45, 69, 75, 77, 88 and 89, no document shall be registered under this Act, unless the persons 64 executing such document, or their representatives, assigns or agents authorized as aforesaid, appear before the registering officer within the time allowed for presentation under sections 23, 24, 25 and 26: Provided that, if owing to urgent necessity or unavoidable

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

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

41 Rule 1 of C.P.C., aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dt- 21-11-2002 passed in O.S.No.96 of 1999 on the file of V Addl. District Judge, Fast Track Court, Ranga Reddy Dist., L.B. Nagar. Between: 1. V.SURENDER REDDY, S/o late Sri V. Gopal Reddy Business Rl/o Road No.10, Banjara Hills. Hyderabad 2. D. Madhav

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

Transfer) Act, 1972, but the defendants failed to do so and defendants were not in a position to execute the sale deeds in the absence of such NOC, it is thus held that the defendants were guilty of breaches of contracts being the Agreements to Sell dated 25.9.2006 and not the plaintiff. Issue no.5 is therefore, decided in favour

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

41 of films and other activities connected with the examination, repairs, cleaning, waxing and rewinding of the films.” It was argued before the Supreme Court that section 10 could not be applied as the assessee could not be said to be in occupation of the premises for the purposes of any concern of its own, but it was observed

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

41 RULE 22(2) OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.01.2015 PASSED IN OS.NO.271/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NELAMANGALA, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. THIS RFA AND RFA CROB. HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, KRISHNA S. DIXIT.J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA

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

M\S.CHENNAKESAVA VIJAYAWADA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VIJAYAWAD

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

41,814/=. The appellant-Company, while submitting a letter dated 18th May 1998 providing the details of payments made to Messrs. Essar Projects Limited, made a mention of payment made towards procurement of material to the tune of Rs. 72.60 Crores. The I.T.O with regard to the supply of these materials, discussed the issue in its order and held that

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

Accordingly are partly allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

41 LPA-22-2008+ consideration. 45. Perusal of order passed by commissioner under section 98 proceeding would show that the only consideration which has weighed with him is order dated 15-02-2006 passed in revision bearing no. 71/B/2002/Osmanabad whereas the deputy collector has considered that appellant no. 1 being female, cannot demand partition. This assumption despite the decree

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax vs. D.L.V. Sridhar

Bench: D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Pricing Officer had not verified whether the expenditure claimed was correct. Recording the aforesaid findings, the Assessing Officer disallowed the entire claim of Rs.1,48,89,090/- under section 10A of the Act. 5. The aforesaid addition was deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who observed that the respondent-assessee was maintaining separate accounts for STPI

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 - III, vs. Shri Taher Ali

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

41 / 79 CRA-322-08gr read with 108(o) of the T.P.Act is concerned, the evidence of PW 4 Powale, Structural Engineer and the reports made by him at Exhibit -H, remained absolutely unchallenged. The Courts below after appreciating the evidence on record have concurrently held that defendant no.2 has carried out additions and alterations of permanent nature

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

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s.Viskha Container Terminal Private Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Pricing Officer (TPO) vide letter dated 30.11.2009 and during the course of proceeding before the TPO, assessee vide its letter dated 09.06.2010 categorically stated that its registered office was at Hyderabad and it stood merged with Wipro Ltd., pursuant to the scheme of amalgamation approved by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide order dated 21.02.2008 and scheme of amalgamation

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

transfer of property became taxable under Section 3(a) if the movement of goods from one State to another was under a covenant, or an incident, of the contract of sale and the property in the goods passed to the purchaser in another State. [S.R. Sarkar26]. If there was interruption of movement, and the snapping of the inextricable bond that