The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Smt. Raj Kumari

Accordingly are partly allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

72) and appellants claim that respondent no. 1 had around 1952 orally surrendered his 8 LPA-22-2008+ tenancy of land survey no. 34. After respondent no. 1, one Shivram Sakharam Sawase had been tenant. 4. Aforesaid Shivram Sawase had not asserted his claim over aforesaid land and the appellants had been owners of the aforesaid land. A civil suit

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

72, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata through its Senior General Manager (Finance) Rahul Kumar Bagaria ..... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi 3. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Administration), Jamshedpur Division, Jamshedpur 4. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Adityapur Circle), Jamshedpur 5. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (Adityapur Circle), Jamshedpur .…. … Respondents

S.l. Shiva Raj vs. Commissioner of Income Tax,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

72, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata through its Senior General Manager (Finance) Rahul Kumar Bagaria ..... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi 3. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Administration), Jamshedpur Division, Jamshedpur 4. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Adityapur Circle), Jamshedpur 5. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (Adityapur Circle), Jamshedpur .…. … Respondents

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-1 vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

transfer is, therefore, not vitiated by lis pendence. Section 52 of the Act does not wipe out the transaction altogether. 5.PrinciplegroundsofcontentioninC.C.C.A.No.186 of 2O11 are as under:- TheLowerCourtfailedtoseethatRespondentsl to 11 and 14 (Vendors) failed to comply with the condition of obtaining NOC under IT Act, which was mandatory on the date of the agreement of sale Ex. A3 and filing

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agrilcultural Market Committee

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

transfer is, therefore, not vitiated by lis pendence. Section 52 of the Act does not wipe out the transaction altogether. 5.PrinciplegroundsofcontentioninC.C.C.A.No.186 of 2O11 are as under:- TheLowerCourtfailedtoseethatRespondentsl to 11 and 14 (Vendors) failed to comply with the condition of obtaining NOC under IT Act, which was mandatory on the date of the agreement of sale Ex. A3 and filing

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

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

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

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.

72. In terms of clause 15, the plaintiff was to phase the construction in such a manner that the portions allotted to the owners and builders are constructed simultaneously. 73. What is most important is that in terms of clause 22 of the agreement, the plaintiff was granted a license to enter upon the land only for the purpose

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-III vs. Sri Atluri Subba Rao,

price to purchase the suit land, the finding of the learned Trial Judge on this score was absolutely justified but the Appeal Court below, without considering the documents proved by the defendants in support of their said defence, has reversed the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Judge. He further submits that the defence of the defendants squarely comes

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/s Padmapriya Real Estates AND Financiers

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment passed by

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

transfer at Jagdalpur, he handed over the further investigation to Sahid Ali / P. K. Shukla under the instruction of Superintendent of Police. In cross-examination he admitted that he has not 13 come across about any circular that 60% of the total amount is to be considered as expenditure and 40% is to be considered as savings. He further admitted

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

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