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 paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised. Sale how made.— 3Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument. 1In the case of tangible immoveable property of a value

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

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 - III, vs. Shri Taher Ali

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

price paid or promised, or of money, a share 57 / 79 CRA-322-08gr of crops, service or any other thing of value to be rendered periodically or on specified occasions to the transferor by the transferee, who accepts the transfer on such terms. Relying upon this judgment as also Section 105 of T.P. Act he submitted that leave

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

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3 vs. M/s Sri Indra Power Energies Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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 Date of Judgment

Commissioner of Income Tax III vs. SVEC Constructions Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Transfer of Shares in Tax Havens Date of Judgment 12-07-2018, ITA No.484/2013 The Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s 3D PLM Software Solutions Limited 9/11 (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

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. M/S GOLDEN STAR FACILITIES AND SERVICES PVT LTD., HYD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

58. Further, Mr. Santhosh Mathew has invited our attention to the two definitions of Act, 1957, viz., Section 3(c), which defines “mining lease”, to mean a lease granted for the purpose of undertaking mining operations, WP(C). 11249/2010 & other contd cases. -:82:- and includes a sub-lease granted for such purpose; and Section 3(e), which defines “minor minerals

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

The COmmissioner of Income Tax -IV vs. Nagarjuna Aqua Exports Ltd.,

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

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 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax [Central] vs. M/s Nallamala Agro Farms Pvt Ltd.,

Bench: J. UMA DEVI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

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

PRL COMMR OF INCOME TAX-5, vs. M/S SOMESWARA CEMETS AND CHEMICALS LTD., HYD

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 Date of Judgment 26-07-2018, ITA No.464/2016 The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax & another Vs. M/s.Akamai Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. 9/10 be raised before the High Court under Section

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 23.12.2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA 2320/Del/2010 in respect of the assessment year 2006-07. 2. Essentially, the revenue has proposed the following questions as substantial questions of law:- ITA 569/2012 Page 2 of 6 “(1) Whether on the facts and circumstances

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, vs. M/s Novus GBS Private Limited,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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