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-III vs. Smt. Raj Kumari

Accordingly are partly allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

65 (as amended by Bihar Scheduled Areas Regulation, 1969, Regn. 4 and Sch.) ” and submits, lapse of 40 years is not a reasonable period for exercise of powers under the statute. He submits that in said case while the unduly long delay had operated against the claimants negating their demands, by analogy, rationale in the same would apply and ought

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

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

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

65(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) has been filed against the order dated 31.07.2017 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal by which the Tribunal has upheld the common order dated 27.12.2012 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Authority

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. New Bombay Goods Transport

65 27. (2002) 5 SCC 203 28. 1990 MhLJ 824 29. (1992) 3 SCC 750 30. AIR 1979 SC 1160

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5 vs. M/s Vijay Textiles Limited

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

price of Rs.150/- sq.ft for the land has been fixed, but land was the capital to be introduced by the 32 assessee for the purpose of endeavor. That assessee had considerable stake, is clear from the fact that asseessee was obliged to offer the land as security for raising loans. Assessee had parted with possession with clear knowledge that

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

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 vs. M/s Natco Exports Ltd.

In the result, the judgment and decree passed by the

Section 27 of the Bihar and Orissa Patna High Court FA No.218 of 2003 dt.16-01-2018 23/37 General Clauses Act such presumption arose with regard to registered letters. Reliance can be placed upon the ruling reported in 1918 Privy Council Page 102 in the matter of Harihar Banergee Vs. Ramashray Rao. The same view has been reported in the case

INCOME TAX BANGALORE vs. SHALINI BHUPAL

Appeal is dismissed

transfer, in either case, had been made at the market value of such goods as on that date : Provided that where, in the opinion of the [Assessing] Officer, the computation of the profits and gains of the industrial undertaking or the business of the hotel or the operation of the ship [or the business of repairs to ocean-going vessels

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.

65. By another contract, the petitioner had offered 5% and 8% of the total built-up area to the respondent no.2 and respondent no.3 who are the occupants/tenants in the building in existence. The petitioner also offered them an alternate accommodation during the period of construction. 66. The above terms clearly indicate that under the Collaboration Agreement a right

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

price of the jewellery stolen in a robbery or a burglary was therefore expenditure for the purpose of the business. There can be no doubt that the expenditure was wholly and exclusively in the interest of the business. The expenditure was laid out for no other purpose.” 33. Applying the law explained by the Supreme Court in the above decisions

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

price of the jewellery stolen in a robbery or a burglary was therefore expenditure for the purpose of the business. There can be no doubt that the expenditure was wholly and exclusively in the interest of the business. The expenditure was laid out for no other purpose.” 33. Applying the law explained by the Supreme Court in the above decisions