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

Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, as under: “Sale” defined.—‘‘Sale” is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part- paid and part-promised. Sale how made.—Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S Gulf Oil Corporation Pvt. Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

75,000/­.   Same   loss   of   Rs.   82,000/­is  therefore directed to be allowed in the sale of  shares of Mysore Cement. As regards UTI master and  L & T shares, no rate adjustment is called for and  loss   as   claimed   of   Rs.   15,31,250/­   is   to   be  allowed   in   full.   Thus,   total   short   term   capital  loss

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Jayalakshmi Chits

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

75,000/­.   Same   loss   of   Rs.   82,000/­is  therefore directed to be allowed in the sale of  shares of Mysore Cement. As regards UTI master and  L & T shares, no rate adjustment is called for and  loss   as   claimed   of   Rs.   15,31,250/­   is   to   be  allowed   in   full.   Thus,   total   short   term   capital  loss

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

75,000/­.   Same   loss   of   Rs.   82,000/­is  therefore directed to be allowed in the sale of  shares of Mysore Cement. As regards UTI master and  L & T shares, no rate adjustment is called for and  loss   as   claimed   of   Rs.   15,31,250/­   is   to   be  allowed   in   full.   Thus,   total   short   term   capital  loss

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

75 against the subsequent WP-211-2006 -14- purchasers and the original landlord Dadarao for a decree of perpetual injunction. Learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Osmanabad had referred the tenancy issue to the tenancy court and accordingly, deceased Deorao Bajirao Thorat had initiated proceedings before the Naib Tahsildar bearing case no. 96/TNC/80/38. Initially, learned Naib Tahsildar was pleased to hold

The Commisioner of Income TAx-1 vs. Divya Shakti Granites Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

price paid for the land in question. Therefore, there is no scope for plea of poverty. It has come in the evidence of DW.1 that this defendant was informed of plaintiff’s transaction. As a businessman, he ought to have made reasonable enquiry, obviously that would include about the court proceedings. What enquiries were made

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s Y.Ramakrishna and others

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

75,OOO/- on 23.02.7999 and (iii) Rs. 3,81,750/ on23.O4.1999. It Is the case of vendors that purchaser did not pay balance sale consideration of Rs. 11,3I,75O1-. The purchaser did not dispute the default on his part in payment of balance sale consideration, however, \\ -..,,- t2 he tried to justify his default by pleading that vendors failed

PR COMMR OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. K RAVINDER REDDY, HYDERABAD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

transfer to other entities. In terms of the application made to RBI and permission obtained, the liaison office was to act as a communication channel between the head office and the customers in India. The assessees did not file returns of income for any year. 5. A survey under Section 133A of the Act was conducted

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 - 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

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

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 110 of the Act, if an AOP is chargeable to tax at maximum marginal rate then the share of profits in the hands of the members is not chargeable to tax at all. 19. Now against the above contours of taxability of an AOP, we have to see the facts of the case before us. The first

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 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax [Central] vs. M/s Nallamala Agro Farms Pvt Ltd.,

Bench: J. UMA DEVI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

Transfer Pricing Officer to exclude M/s. Persistent Systems Ltd., as its RPT is 15.47 and to include Thinksoft Global Services Ltd., even without proper application of principles for adopting the same? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right Date of Judgment 18-07-2018, ITA No.170/2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income

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. Laila Impex,

Accordingly answered against the Revenue. The appeals fail and are dismissed, without

price paid by the customer to the assessee and states that this is disproportionately high in comparison to the cost incurred by the assessee for the transponder. This according to the AO lead to an inference that the customers are compensating the assessee for not only the transponder cost but also the cost of the satellite. The AO did this

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.

75. In Vinod Seth (Supra), specific performance was being sought of an oral Agreement which also provided for transfer of ground floor of a building to be constructed in favour of the builder upon such construction. The Supreme Court refused to grant such relief to the plaintiff therein and held as under:- CS(OS) No.486/2011 Page 41 “13. The agreement