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

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

5 of 43 (i) Receipt-cum-Agreement to Sell dated 25.9.2006 executed by the defendant nos.1, 3 and 4 as Ex.P-1 (admitted document) (ii) Receipt-cum-Agreement to Sell dated 25.9.2006 executed by the defendant no.2 as Ex.P-2 (admitted document) (iii) Zonal Development Plan issued by the DDA with respect to the land situated in village Goela Khurd as Ex.PW5/1

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

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 accident

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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Section 13 which provides for Rule making power of the Central Government in respect of minerals. Section 13 subsection (1) WP(C). 11249/2010 & other contd cases. -:88:- and Section 13 Sub-section (2) in so far as relevant in the present case are as follows: “13. Power of Central Government to make Rules in respect of minerals.-- (1) The Central

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

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

transferred or existent in the finished product. It has been submitted that ITC is in the nature of concession and it is well within the legislative competence of the State Government to withdraw such concession by restricting availability of ITC on certain goods. It has been submitted that withdrawal of exemption is a matter of policy and there is limited

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

transferred or existent in the finished product. It has been submitted that ITC is in the nature of concession and it is well within the legislative competence of the State Government to withdraw such concession by restricting availability of ITC on certain goods. It has been submitted that withdrawal of exemption is a matter of policy and there is limited

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S Gulf Oil Corporation Pvt. Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

43,750/­ c) 30,000 12,22,500 19.2.92 40.75 28 L & T 19,45,000 18.2.92 a) 10,000 194.50 21,30,000 b) 5,000 9,35,000 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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

43,750/­ c) 30,000 12,22,500 19.2.92 40.75 28 L & T 19,45,000 18.2.92 a) 10,000 194.50 21,30,000 b) 5,000 9,35,000 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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

43,750/­ c) 30,000 12,22,500 19.2.92 40.75 28 L & T 19,45,000 18.2.92 a) 10,000 194.50 21,30,000 b) 5,000 9,35,000 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

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

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri. B. Venkatesam,

The appeal stands disposed of with no order as to

5 of 24 clearing charges, etc. and 3% of the total cost. As per clause 11 of the agreements, any liability arising after the sale of the imported material, in respect of custom duty, excise duty, penalty, sales tax, etc., would be paid by the appellant and included in the landed cost of imported material. Clauses

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 Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. New Bombay Goods Transport

5) of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Act no.74 of 1956), the Governor is pleased to direct that with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the official Gazette, the tax payable under sub-section (1) of the said section by any dealer having his place of business in the State of Uttaranchal

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 - III, vs. Shri Taher Ali

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

43 / 79 CRA-322-08gr contemplated by Section 13(1)(e) and non user as contemplated by Section 13 (1)(k) of the Act. 59. Plaintiffs have contended that defendant no.1 has, since coming into operation of the Act, unlawfully sub-let or given on leave and licence, the whole or part of the suit premises or assigned

The Commissioner of Income Tax (IT and TP) vs. M/s. Idea Cellular Limited

Accordingly, the learned appellate authority has rightly dismissed the

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

price. 27. In that view of the matter, as it is admitted case of the petitioner that the electricity generated in 540 MW Power Plant is used in the course of or furtherance of his business, which is evident from Form G provided by the taxpayer i.e. the petitioner herein, the petitioner would not be entitled for ITC to electrical

Suchirindia Infratech Pvt. Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax

Accordingly, the learned appellate authority has rightly dismissed the

Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

price. 27. In that view of the matter, as it is admitted case of the petitioner that the electricity generated in 540 MW Power Plant is used in the course of or furtherance of his business, which is evident from Form G provided by the taxpayer i.e. the petitioner herein, the petitioner would not be entitled for ITC to electrical

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.

5 above) and direct specific performance of the “collaboration agreement” by the respondents, it will not be practical or possible for the court to ensure that the appellant will perform his part of the obligations, that is, demolish the existing structure, construct a three-storeyed building as per the agreed specifications within one year, and deliver free of cost