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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

transferred   to   somebody   else,   it   is   necessary  that   evidence   should   be   there   to   prove   that  change in hands. Thus it cannot be claimed by the  assessee that he/ she does not have evidence to  prove the factum of sale or purchases. Therefore,  producing   evidence   in   this   regard   was   not  physically impossible for the assessee and if the  same

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

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

68 Years, Occ Household, R/o. 14-'l-363, New Agapura, Hyderabad. 4. Saranga Pavan Kumar, S/o. Late Saranga Krishna Murthy, Aged about 42 Years. Occ. Business, R/o. 14-1-363, NewAgapura, Hyderabad. 5. A. Manjula, Wo. A Madhusudhan, Aged about 49 Years, Occ Household, Rlo.5-2-544, Osman Gunj, Risala Abdulla, Nampaily. Hyderabad. 6. Bande Vani, Wo. Bande Srinivas, Aged about

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agrilcultural Market Committee

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

68 Years, Occ Household, R/o. 14-'l-363, New Agapura, Hyderabad. 4. Saranga Pavan Kumar, S/o. Late Saranga Krishna Murthy, Aged about 42 Years. Occ. Business, R/o. 14-1-363, NewAgapura, Hyderabad. 5. A. Manjula, Wo. A Madhusudhan, Aged about 49 Years, Occ Household, Rlo.5-2-544, Osman Gunj, Risala Abdulla, Nampaily. Hyderabad. 6. Bande Vani, Wo. Bande Srinivas, Aged about

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

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

M/s. Canara Securities Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO,T.AMARNATH GOUD

Section 178 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the Chairman of the company, HVL cannot arrogate unto himself the power to cause such appointment when such power ultimately rests with the Board of Directors. The observation of the two Joint APLs that the evident performance of BCrL, the flagship company of MP Birla Group is deteriorating ever since, HVL became

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

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.

68. As noted hereinabove, in terms of the agreement the plaintiff is to provide “a suitable alternate accommodation” to the respondent no. 2 and 3 in the preferred localities. It is already noticed hereinabove that there was a major dispute between the parties with respect to the availability of such suitable alternate accommodation. In any case, what such suitable alternate

V.C. NANNAPANENI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

In the result, the appeals are allowed

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

68,625/- and in the process of determination, the said officer has included a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- received by the appellant from Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited (hereinafter referred to as “RLL”) towards “non-competition fee” included under the head “income from other sources” and treated it as revenue receipt and accordingly subjected the same to tax. As regards

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

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

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Hycons Infrastructure (India) Ltd.

The appeals are dismissed

68 74 33 4. Tyres 118 73 191 62 39 5. Cosmetics 170 33 203 84 53 6. Misc. Chemicals 266 28 294 90 31 7. Soap Detergent 117 73 190 64 47 8. Article of plastic 48 12 60 80 22 9. DG sets 15 24 39 39 29 10. Medicines 132 27 159 83 26 Total

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

price index for industrial workers [CPI (IW)]. The view in Kamla Devi (supra) was followed in a number of subsequent decisions of this Court in cases reported as Ashwani Gupta v. Government of India & Ors. 117 (2005) DLT 112; Tasleema v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. ILR (2009) 6 Del 486 : (2009) 161 DLT 660 (DB); Nagrik Sangarsh Samiti