THE PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. L SURYAKANTHAM, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

65,514/-. The Assessing Officer, by an order dated 03.02.2014, processed the return. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued. The Assessing Officer, during the course of the proceedings, found that the 4 assessee - Company had returned the international transaction in Form 3CEB and paid

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 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 (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

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 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-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 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 (IT and TP) vs. M/s. Idea Cellular Limited

Accordingly, the learned appellate authority has rightly dismissed the

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

65) GSTL 263 (AP) 8 (1985) 1 SCC 591 9 (1987) 1 SCC 695 10 (2005) 7 SCC 396 Page 12 of 32 {W.P.(T)Nos.14/2021, 15/2021, 16/2021, 17/2021 & 18/2021} would rely upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of Maruti Suzuki Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi III11 and Commissioner of Central Excise v. Gujarat

Suchirindia Infratech Pvt. Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax

Accordingly, the learned appellate authority has rightly dismissed the

Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

65) GSTL 263 (AP) 8 (1985) 1 SCC 591 9 (1987) 1 SCC 695 10 (2005) 7 SCC 396 Page 12 of 32 {W.P.(T)Nos.14/2021, 15/2021, 16/2021, 17/2021 & 18/2021} would rely upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of Maruti Suzuki Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi III11 and Commissioner of Central Excise v. Gujarat

The Pr. Commissioner of Income tax (Central), vs. Sri Vaishnavi Educational Society,

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.51929/2014 C/W W.P.Nos.42063/2012, 30494/2013, 42671/2013, 638/2014, 797/2014, 1089/2014, 3211/2014, 3389/2014, 6180/2014, 10356/2014, 12014/2014, 12015/2014, 13043/2014, 13045/2014, 13206/2014, 13207/2014, 13398/2014, 13774/2014, 14149/2014, 14161/2014, 14494/2014, 14502/2014, 14521/2014, 14689/2014, 16646/2014, 17051/2014, 17594/2014, 19729/2014, 21158/2014, 23897/2014, 28861/2014, 30731/2014, 31723/2014, 33774/2014, 33777/2014, 34084/2014, 34259/2014, 34272/2014, 34391/2014, 35204/2014, 35243/2014, 35247/2014, 35305/2014, 35609/2014, 36164/2014, 36166/2014, 36489/2014, 36525/2014, 36971/2014, 37446/2014, 38055/2014, 38463/2014, 38471/2014, 38472/2014, 38661/2014, 38753/2014, 39383/2014, 39633/2014, 39832/2014, 40204/2014, 40379/2014, 41394/2014, 41422/2014, 41427/2014, 41428/2014, 41858/2014, 43815/2014, 43963/2014, 44306/2014, 44527/2014, 44742/2014, 44835/2014, 45486/2014, 46766/2014, 47103/2014, 47105/2014, 47106/2014, 47107/2014, 47608/2014, 47731/2014, 47821/2014, 47860/2014, 47913/2014, 48577/2014, 48880/2014, 49567/2014, 50260/2014, 50533/2014, 51294/2014, 51930/2014, 51931/2014, 51932/2014, 52760/2014, 53854/2014, 54059/2014, 54083/2014, 54236/2014

65 YEARS R/A NO.78, K NARAYANAPURA ANJANEYA TEMPLE MAIN ROAD SHIVARAMAKARANATH NAGAR POST BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE-560077 REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER SMT PADMAVATHI N D/O SMT RATHNAMMA W/O SRI HARISHA V AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/A NO.78, K NARAYANAPURA ANJANEYA TEMPLE MAIN ROAD 114 SHIVARAMAKARANTH NAGAR POST BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE-560077 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.R. SHIVA PRAKASH, ADVOCATE

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

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

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 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