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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

price  lower than the market rate. If that be so,  the   question   of   inflating   the   loss   by  transferring   the   shares   to   group   company  would   not   arise.   Under   ordinary  circumstances,   it   is   always   open   to   the  assessee in his own wisdom to either hold on  to certain bunch of shares or to sell the  same to avoid further loss

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

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

64 executing such document, or their representatives, assigns or agents authorized as aforesaid, appear before the registering officer within the time allowed for presentation under sections 23, 24, 25 and 26: Provided that, if owing to urgent necessity or unavoidable accident all such persons do not so appear, the Registrar, in cases where the delay in appearing does not exceed

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Construction

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

64 3. Sunderabai Sahebrao Shinde Vs. Balasaheb Bansi Chalak Others reported in 1992 MCR 312 WP-211-2006 -13- 4. Sonabai w/o Ratan Ainapure & Anr. Vs. Shankar s/o Laxman Ainapure & Anr. (Writ Petition No. 935 of 1989 decided by this Court on 08.09.2008) 5. Vijaysingh Vs. Sopan and Others reported in 1997 MCr 334 6. Shri. Mahadev Ballappa Burud

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

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

transferred has to be known, the price has to be known and if any balance is payable what is that balance due. On such aspects existing then such a document will be a contract under the Indian Contract Act in view of Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act which states that all agreements are contracts if they are entered

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

Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

64 yrs., Business H.No. 14-1-363, New Aghapura, Hyderabad. 2. S.Srinivas Rao, S/o Krishna Murthy, Business H.No. 14-'l-363, New Aghapura, Hyderabad. 3. Smt. Zubeda Khatoon, Wo late Khaja Moinuddin, House hold R/o H.NO. 15- 6-215, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad. through GPA Holder Khaja Moinuddin, age 57 years, R/o Flat No.1003, Mount Nasir, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 4. Mrs. Rasheeda

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agrilcultural Market Committee

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

64 yrs., Business H.No. 14-1-363, New Aghapura, Hyderabad. 2. S.Srinivas Rao, S/o Krishna Murthy, Business H.No. 14-'l-363, New Aghapura, Hyderabad. 3. Smt. Zubeda Khatoon, Wo late Khaja Moinuddin, House hold R/o H.NO. 15- 6-215, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad. through GPA Holder Khaja Moinuddin, age 57 years, R/o Flat No.1003, Mount Nasir, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 4. Mrs. Rasheeda

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 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s. GJ Trading Pvt Ltd

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 9(1)(vii). Hence, we hereby decline to interfere with the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel in this case.” 6. Before us Mr. Rai, learned counsel for the appellant, however, would submit that as per the disclosures which were made by the assessee in the Transfer Pricing Study itself, the transaction relating to Freight Logistic Support Services would

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 Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Natco Exports Ltd.

In the result, the judgment and decree passed by the

price of the land as per the circle rate fixed by the Government and would not mention the entire consideration money of Rs. 3,35,000/- because it would cost them higher stamp fee and court fee and they may be involved in income tax. They further stated that at the request of the plaintiffs they executed the sale deeds

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

Section 1. Assignment and Assumption. Assignor hereby assigns to the Assignee all the rights, entitlements, covenants and obligations of the Assignor under the Equipment Contract to sell, supply and deliver the Equipment to the Purchaser under the Equipment Contract and the Assignee hereby assumes, and agrees with all of the parties hereto, to perform, observe and be bound by each

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, vs. Sri Prem Chand

64 रज.ब.क.अ. 1994 क अतर#त आरBवपत शजसत अपसत कF जत ह तर अनतररक कररBपण व उस पर आरBवपत ब ज कF प(वS कF जत ह । न ण# स(   र  । sd/- sd/- (आर.स. ज ) (वववप भट रर) सदस सदस 5. Being aggrieved by the same, the Assessee

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.

64. In the present case, in terms of clause 11 of the Collaboration Agreement, the petitioner, as a builder, was to get 55% of the total built- up area, whereas, the respondent no.1, as the owner, was to get 45% of CS(OS) No.486/2011 Page 38 the total built-up area of the new construction. In terms of clause

The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Vaishnavi Educational Society

In the result, this Cross Objection is allowed and the suit is

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

transfer by the Owner to defeat or delay his creditors, it applies generally to all transferees RFA 554/15 & CON. CASES 46 who claim to be bonafide. A learned Division Bench of this Court also followed this view in Krishnamenon v. Pradeep Kumar (2017 (1) KLT 429), holding again in the context of Section 53 of the TP Act, that once

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Hyderabad House Pvt Ltd.,

64. A similar route was taken by another single bench of this Court in a case for compensation arising out of an incident of terrorism in Kamla Devi v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 2005 ACJ 216 (Delhi): 114 (2004) DLT 57, wherein the value of the conventional sum awarded in MAC App. Nos. 554/2010 & conn. Page