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

55 of the 1922 Act which is the precursor of Section 256(1) of the Act. Ruling on the scope of the said provision, the Division Bench of the Supreme Court observed that, “when a question of law is neither raised before the Tribunal nor considered by it, will not be a question arising out of the order

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

55 of the 1922 Act which is the precursor of Section 256(1) of the Act. Ruling on the scope of the said provision, the Division Bench of the Supreme Court observed that, “when a question of law is neither raised before the Tribunal nor considered by it, will not be a question arising out of the order

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. The Andhra Bank Employees Co.Operative Bank Limited

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

55 of the 1922 Act which is the precursor of Section 256(1) of the Act. Ruling on the scope of the said provision, the Division Bench of the Supreme Court observed that, “when a question of law is neither raised before the Tribunal nor considered by it, will not be a question arising out of the order

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

55 of the 1922 Act which is the precursor of Section 256(1) of the Act. Ruling on the scope of the said provision, the Division Bench of the Supreme Court observed that, “when a question of law is neither raised before the Tribunal nor considered by it, will not be a question arising out of the order

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3 vs. M/s Satyasai Bhavani Hsopitals Private Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2) An appeal may lie under this section from an appellate decree passed ex- parte. Date of Judgment 25-06-2018 I.T.A.No.536/2015 C/w I.T.A.No.537/2015 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s. Softbrands India P. Ltd., 35/80 (3) In an appeal under this section, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2,01,250 19.2.92 40.25 9,80,000 16.1.92 Rs.4,43,750/­ 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 Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S Gulf Oil Corporation Pvt. Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2,01,250 19.2.92 40.25 9,80,000 16.1.92 Rs.4,43,750/­ 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 Commissioner of Income Tax - VI vs. M/s. Manikanta Iron AND Hardware

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2,01,250 19.2.92 40.25 9,80,000 16.1.92 Rs.4,43,750/­ 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 Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s Pokarna Limited

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

price received by the respondent was at the rate of Rs.136 per share the full value of the consideration must be taken at the rate of Rs.136 per share. The view that we have expressed as to the interpretation of the main part of section 12B(2) is borne out by the fact that in the first proviso to section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, HYD vs. M/S. SUJANA METALS LTD, HYD

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

55 (2) (a) of the Act, which is in the following terms:- (2) For the purposes of sections 48 and 49, "cost of acquisition", - (a) In relation to a capital asset, being goodwill of a business, or a right to manufacture, produce or process any article or thing, tenancy rights, stage carriage permits or loom hours, - (i) In the case

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

2 SCC (Civ) 101: 2009 SCC OnLine SC 395, wherein it was observed at page 196: “16. Sale is defined as being a transfer of ownership for a price. In a sale, there is an absolute transfer of all rights in the properties sold. No rights are left in the transferor. The price is fixed by the contract antecedent

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

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

55 and 56 IV th Phase, Adityapur, Jamshedpur through its Director-cum- Authorized Signatory Dilip Kumar Goyel ..... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi 3. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Administration), Jamshedpur Division, Jamshedpur 4. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Adityapur Circle), Jamshedpur 5. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

55 and 56 IV th Phase, Adityapur, Jamshedpur through its Director-cum- Authorized Signatory Dilip Kumar Goyel ..... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi 3. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Administration), Jamshedpur Division, Jamshedpur 4. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Adityapur Circle), Jamshedpur 5. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

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

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act requires that seller must have the power to execute the sale deed and which power comes to the defendants/sellers having in this case obtained the necessary NOC from the concerned authority under the Delhi Land (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972. Though it is not as if that in a suit for specific

M.Y.Maharshi vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, we do not find

2) of the Act was issued on 05.10.2007. During the relevant financial year, it was observed that the assessee had international transactions exceeding Rs.15 Crores. Therefore, with prior approval of the Commissioner of Income Tax 5 (Appeals), Bangalore-I, Bangalore, a reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer to determine the arms length price as per Section 92CA

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Akula Nageswara Rao

In the result, the orders passed by the Assessing

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

price as well as the terms and conditions. The aforesaid quotation states that Dell product would be exported from Malaysia. Thus, the petitioner seeks customer's upfront contractual approval of manufacture and supply of required product from Malaysia. On receipt of the quotation, customer accepts either by signing the same or by raising a purchase order or by making

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

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

2 companies and certain other individuals as Directors of 4 listed companies, 3 subsidiaries of one listed company and an unlisted company is bad in law since the Joint APLs merely represents the estate of PDB and thus, had no rights to seek appointment of Directors in companies in which PDB was not a "Member". Further, without prejudice

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