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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

57,000 ­  Rs.   75,000/­.   Same   loss   of   Rs.   82,000/­is  therefore directed to be allowed in the sale of  shares of Mysore Cement. As regards UTI master and  L & T shares, no rate adjustment is called for and  loss   as   claimed   of   Rs.   15,31,250/­   is   to   be  allowed   in   full.   Thus,   total   short   term   capital  loss

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

57,000 ­  Rs.   75,000/­.   Same   loss   of   Rs.   82,000/­is  therefore directed to be allowed in the sale of  shares of Mysore Cement. As regards UTI master and  L & T shares, no rate adjustment is called for and  loss   as   claimed   of   Rs.   15,31,250/­   is   to   be  allowed   in   full.   Thus,   total   short   term   capital  loss

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

57,000 ­  Rs.   75,000/­.   Same   loss   of   Rs.   82,000/­is  therefore directed to be allowed in the sale of  shares of Mysore Cement. As regards UTI master and  L & T shares, no rate adjustment is called for and  loss   as   claimed   of   Rs.   15,31,250/­   is   to   be  allowed   in   full.   Thus,   total   short   term   capital  loss

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 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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

price paid for the land in question. Therefore, there is no scope for plea of poverty. It has come in the evidence of DW.1 that this defendant was informed of plaintiff’s transaction. As a businessman, he ought to have made reasonable enquiry, obviously that would include about the court proceedings. What enquiries were made

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA vs. M/S. PADMAVATHI MANSION (P) LTD., VIJAYAWADA

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

Transfer of Shares in Tax Havens (like in the case of Vodafone etc.), if based on relevant facts, such substantial questions of law could be raised before the High Court under Section 260-A of the Act, the Courts could have embarked upon such exercise of framing and answering such substantial question of law. On the other hand, the appeals

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV, HYDERABAD vs. M/S NAVA BHARAT VENTURES LTD., HYDERABAD

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

57,4 provisions of Section 8OJA(8) and 1961. He further submitted that that the power plants were set uP the APSEB has granted sanction o Consumption. Since the main obj plant is for captive. consumP disallowed the entire claim of ded the Act, 1961. 5. On the other hand, le while supporting the orders Passe contending that the Power

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

price, and requesting them to place an order with the foreign headquarters were not auxiliary or preparatory in nature. The observations and findings of the High Court are eerily similar to the facts of this case: “Relying on these provisions, it is contended by the assessee that the liaison office was opened to act as a communication channel between

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 (Central) vs. Madhu Enterprises

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

transferred into or existent in the finished product whether as goods or in any other form’ 35. Arguments have been advanced by learned counsel for the 50 petitioners that by virtue of said amendment, raw materials which are in the nature of consumables, have been denied benefit of ITC and the said classification sought to be made is wholly violative

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

transferred into or existent in the finished product whether as goods or in any other form’ 35. Arguments have been advanced by learned counsel for the 50 petitioners that by virtue of said amendment, raw materials which are in the nature of consumables, have been denied benefit of ITC and the said classification sought to be made is wholly violative

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

Section 143(3)/147 of the Act. Assessment Order dated 18th December, 2006 14. The AO observed that the Assessee had not booked any establishment cost, depreciation or any other indirect costs in its accounts. Further, the Assessee had also not showed any source of funds. The AO noted that the equipment stated to have been supplied by the Assessee

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 105 defines lease. It lays down that a lease of immovable property is a transfer of a right to enjoy such property, made for a certain time, express or implied, or in perpetuity, in consideration of a price paid or promised, or of money, a share 57

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-IV, HYDERABAD vs. M/S NAVA BHARAT VENTURES LTD., HYD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

57,48,992/- by invoking the provisions of Section B0-IA(8) and Section 80-IA (10) of the Act, 1961. He further submitted that the Assessing Officer observed that the power plants were set up for Captive C,tnsumption and the APStrE; has granted sanction only for the purpose of Captive Consumption. Since the main objective for setting

Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

57 years, R/o Flat No.1003, Mount Nasir, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 4. Mrs. Rasheeda Parveen, Wo Khaja Yousufuddin R/o Flat NO.1OO3, Mount Nasir, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 5. Mrs. Qamarunnisa Begum lsince deceased per LRs, Respondents No. 7 to 13 hereinl 6. Khaja Badaruddin, S/o late Nizamuddin, R/o H.No.15-6-215, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad. 7. l(ha1a Nizamuddin, S/o late Khaja Moinuddin, Business

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agrilcultural Market Committee

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

57 years, R/o Flat No.1003, Mount Nasir, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 4. Mrs. Rasheeda Parveen, Wo Khaja Yousufuddin R/o Flat NO.1OO3, Mount Nasir, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 5. Mrs. Qamarunnisa Begum lsince deceased per LRs, Respondents No. 7 to 13 hereinl 6. Khaja Badaruddin, S/o late Nizamuddin, R/o H.No.15-6-215, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad. 7. l(ha1a Nizamuddin, S/o late Khaja Moinuddin, Business

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.

57. Sub Section 1 of Section 14 prior to amendments is also relevant and is quoted hereinbelow:- “14. Contracts not specifically enforceable.- (1) The following contracts cannot be specifically enforced, namely:- (a) a contract for the non-performance of which compensation in money is an adequate relief; (b) a contract which runs into such minute or numerous details or which