M/S VAIBHAV vs. JOINT COMM. OF INCOME TAX RANGE 3 HYD

Appeal is allowed and the judgments and decrees passed by the

Bench: The Learned Trial Court) Was Allowed & The Judgment & Decree Dated 12.12.2000, Passed By Learned Senior Sub Judge, Kullu Was Set-Aside. (Parties Shall Hereinafter Be Referred To In

transfer of suit land in favour of the defendant? OPP. 2. Whether consideration of ₹19,000/- was written in the agreement in order to meet the requirement of stamp duty as alleged? OPP. 3. Whether the defendant has failed to construct the house as per agreement? OPP. 4. If issue No.3 is proved whether the sale deed dated

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

50  to 52 of the documents attached with the appeal  relating   to   Smt.   Sulochana   V   Gupta.   We   have  perused the copy of these vouchers which are self  prepared giving the particulars of credit amount,  number   of   shares,   rate   of   sale   and   name   of  company.   On   these   vouchers   neither   the  particulars of shares i.e. distinctive number nor  names of persons

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

50  to 52 of the documents attached with the appeal  relating   to   Smt.   Sulochana   V   Gupta.   We   have  perused the copy of these vouchers which are self  prepared giving the particulars of credit amount,  number   of   shares,   rate   of   sale   and   name   of  company.   On   these   vouchers   neither   the  particulars of shares i.e. distinctive number nor  names of persons

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

50  to 52 of the documents attached with the appeal  relating   to   Smt.   Sulochana   V   Gupta.   We   have  perused the copy of these vouchers which are self  prepared giving the particulars of credit amount,  number   of   shares,   rate   of   sale   and   name   of  company.   On   these   vouchers   neither   the  particulars of shares i.e. distinctive number nor  names of persons

Commissioner of Income tax-VI vs. M/s. Narpat Girji Constructions,

The appeal is allowed

50 paisa in a Rupee) Now the Company in liquidation is having Rs.14,01,923/- only available to the credit of the Company in liquidation. 8. The Company in liquidation is also having land of 6.29 acres in Survey Nos.22, 23 part, 27 part in Harihar Village and Taluk, measuring to an extent of 1.430 acres and 4.869 acres together

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

Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, as under: “Sale” defined.—‘‘Sale” is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part- paid and part-promised. Sale how made.—Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

50,000/-; we repeat rest all remains same. Ordinarily, mere change of price alone may not amount to novatio. It is more so when there is a tacit understanding between the parties that for all practical purposes, higher price should be kept in consideration and only for the limited purpose of saving stamp duty, capital gains tax, etc., the official

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

50 income tax under the head “Income from other sources”, if it is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in section 14, items A to E. Sub-section (2) of Section 56 specifically states that the incomes shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head Income from other sources. Clause (ii) of Section

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

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

Transfer 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

50 / 79 CRA-322-08gr reasons, he submitted that Civil Revision Application deserves to be allowed and the suit ought to be decree also on the ground under section 13(1)(e) and 13(1)(k) of the Act. 69. On the other hand, Mr. Walawalkar supported the impugned order. He submitted that the suit instituted by the plaintiffs

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

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

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), vs. M/s Country Club Inda Limited

50% of the alleged profits to the alleged PE of the Appellant in India and whether such approach and quantification was inconsistent with Article 7 of the DTAA? ITA 666/2014 & Ors. Page 7 of 57 (v). Whether Tribunal erred in confirming the levy of interest under section 234B of the Act?‖ 7. The principal controversy involved in these appeals

Smt.Sudia Indira vs. The Income Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal from order stand dismissed

transferring, selling, gifting, mortgaging, renting, leasing the suit land in  any manner whatsoever to the third party and also from erecting any  construction developing the suit land till final disposal of the suit. 4. While denying each and every averments made by the plaintiff in  the suit, the owners have contended that the suit is hit by provisions of  section