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

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 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

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

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

Accordingly are partly allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

transferred statutorily upon declaration being made and price having been paid, claimed possession by original landlord has been considered to be unauthorized for severance of ties as landlord and tenant with declaration of ownership. It was considered that section 98 proceedings can be initiated on satisfaction of that person to be 44

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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

44. We have discussed the aforesaid case laws in little more detail, even though we have indicated above that the Appellants – Petitioners are not entitled to raise these questions of law in view of its own reprehensible and abhorrent conduct in producing a false and fabricated document in the form of Exemption Order under Section

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

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

price of goods taxable under Section 10 of the Act; ii) Transaction falling under Section 5(2), Section 6-A and Section 6(2) of the CST Act, 1956, iii) Value of transfer of a business as a whole iv) [ xxx] (iii) This sub-rule is not applicable, if the VAT dealer is making exempt transactions. 22. By comparing

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

price of goods taxable under Section 10 of the Act; ii) Transaction falling under Section 5(2), Section 6-A and Section 6(2) of the CST Act, 1956, iii) Value of transfer of a business as a whole iv) [ xxx] (iii) This sub-rule is not applicable, if the VAT dealer is making exempt transactions. 22. By comparing

Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

transfer is, therefore, not vitiated by lis pendence. Section 52 of the Act does not wipe out the transaction altogether. 5.PrinciplegroundsofcontentioninC.C.C.A.No.186 of 2O11 are as under:- TheLowerCourtfailedtoseethatRespondentsl to 11 and 14 (Vendors) failed to comply with the condition of obtaining NOC under IT Act, which was mandatory on the date of the agreement of sale Ex. A3 and filing

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agrilcultural Market Committee

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

transfer is, therefore, not vitiated by lis pendence. Section 52 of the Act does not wipe out the transaction altogether. 5.PrinciplegroundsofcontentioninC.C.C.A.No.186 of 2O11 are as under:- TheLowerCourtfailedtoseethatRespondentsl to 11 and 14 (Vendors) failed to comply with the condition of obtaining NOC under IT Act, which was mandatory on the date of the agreement of sale Ex. A3 and filing

The Commissioner of Income -Tax - III, vs. Shri Taher Ali

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

44 / 79 CRA-322-08gr 61. In support of this Application, Mr. Thacker has taken me through the pleadings, oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties. He submitted that DW 1 Mangal K.Thakkar deposed that under an agreement of leave and licence dated 1.9.1968 defendant no.1 inducted defendant no.2 in the suit premises. On 1.7.1970 defendant

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

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5 vs. M/s Vijay Textiles Limited

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

price of Rs.150/- sq.ft for the land has been fixed, but land was the capital to be introduced by the 32 assessee for the purpose of endeavor. That assessee had considerable stake, is clear from the fact that asseessee was obliged to offer the land as security for raising loans. Assessee had parted with possession with clear knowledge that

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

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.

44 31. Another condition under Section 14(3)(c)(ii) is that the plaintiff has a substantial interest in the performance of the contract and the interest is of such a nature that compensation in money for non-performance of the contract is not an adequate relief. The intent of the section is to make a distinction between cases where

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

transfer to the reserve fund a sum equivalent not less than 20% of such profit. Further, under Section 18 of the BR Act, every banking company, not being a scheduled bank, shall maintain cash reserve with itself or by way of balance in a current account with the RBI. Such cash reserve shall be equivalent to at least

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

transfer to the reserve fund a sum equivalent not less than 20% of such profit. Further, under Section 18 of the BR Act, every banking company, not being a scheduled bank, shall maintain cash reserve with itself or by way of balance in a current account with the RBI. Such cash reserve shall be equivalent to at least

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

transfer to the reserve fund a sum equivalent not less than 20% of such profit. Further, under Section 18 of the BR Act, every banking company, not being a scheduled bank, shall maintain cash reserve with itself or by way of balance in a current account with the RBI. Such cash reserve shall be equivalent to at least