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

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

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

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

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

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

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, (Adityapur Circle

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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, (Adityapur Circle

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

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

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

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 vs. M/s.Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Construction

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

price paid or promised, or of money, a share of crops, service or any other thing of value, to be rendered periodically or on specified occasions to the transferer by the transferee, who accepts the transfer on such terms. According to the original petitioner Deorao Bajirao Thorat, it was an oral lease and the suit land was given in possession

PR COMMR OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. K RAVINDER REDDY, HYDERABAD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

2)(l). We find no infirmity in the ruling of ARR on this aspect. In the above situation, MSCo is rendering services through its employees to MSAS. Therefore, the Department is right in its contention that under the above situation there exists a service PE in India ITA 621/2017 & connected matters Page 54 of 85 (MSAS). Accordingly, the civil appeal

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Laila Impex,

Accordingly answered against the Revenue. The appeals fail and are dismissed, without

price paid by the customer to the assessee and states that this is disproportionately high in comparison to the cost incurred by the assessee for the transponder. This according to the AO lead to an inference that the customers are compensating the assessee for not only the transponder cost but also the cost of the satellite. The AO did this

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-II, vs. M/s Padmapriya Real Estates AND Financiers

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment passed by

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

transfer at Jagdalpur, he handed over the further investigation to Sahid Ali / P. K. Shukla under the instruction of Superintendent of Police. In cross-examination he admitted that he has not 13 come across about any circular that 60% of the total amount is to be considered as expenditure and 40% is to be considered as savings. He further admitted

Commissioner of Income Tax-3, vs. M/s State Bank of Hyderabad

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2) as contained in S.10B of the Act, that while such goods are sold within India to another STP unit, which as per the Exim Policy, the Union of India treats as ‘Deemed Export’ and if a similarly situated assessee in a Free Trade Zone has been held entitled to the benefit of deduction u/s.10A, in respect of the exports

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

56 YEARS, R/AT NO.659, 5TH CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 034. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S S NAGANAND., SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. VIJAYKUMAR DESAI., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.M R RAJAGOPAL., SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI.B M SHIVAJI., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS RFA CROB IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22(2) OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.01.2015 PASSED