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

M/S.R.S.RANGADAS vs. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are disposed of, with no order as to costs

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

47) of the Act and Section 45(1) of the Act which states that profits and gains from transfer of the capital assets shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer takes place, the Assessing Officer held that income from capital gains from transfer/sale of one lakh equity shares of NIIT would

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

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

transfer on account of change in pecuniary jurisdiction, it was renumbered as O.S.No.271/2009. Amongst other Sec. 10 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 came to be amended w.e.f. 01.08.2018 greatly diminishing discretion of Courts to decline decree for specific performance, which otherwise availed to them. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Naganand submits that the amendment is with retrospective effect whereas Mr.Patil appearing

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

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), vs. M/s. Vipanchi Chit Fund Ltd.,

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

price) to tax in this assessment year, i.e., assessment year 2006-07. ITA 569/2012 Page 3 of 6 4. Consequently, the Assessing Officer made an addition of ` 16,93,42,000/- on this account. The said addition was deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the deletion was confirmed by the Tribunal by virtue of the impugned order

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

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. Sri Prem Chand

price may not amount to manufacture, as even after the processing, the commodity commercially known for marketing remains the same viz. milk and the subject of tax has also been identified as one commodity viz.'milk' for tax also which is one of the relevant factor for determination whether a commercially distinct commodity will come into market by the dint

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 (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

M/s. Canara Securities Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO,T.AMARNATH GOUD

Section 178 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the Chairman of the company, HVL cannot arrogate unto himself the power to cause such appointment when such power ultimately rests with the Board of Directors. The observation of the two Joint APLs that the evident performance of BCrL, the flagship company of MP Birla Group is deteriorating ever since, HVL became

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

47) the word transfer includes relinquishment of rights?” 2. We have heard Mr.Jeevan J. Neeralgi appearing on behalf of Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for the appellants-Revenue. 3 3. It appears that the Tribunal while dealing with the said aspects has observed thus: “16. We have perused the orders and heard the rival contentions. The question to be answered

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