Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3 vs. M/s Satyasai Bhavani Hsopitals Private Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) or Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) which comprises of three Commissioners and the Revenue or the assessee may feel dissatisfied, because of the reversal or modification of such findings by the Tribunal resulting in leaving out of certain comparables or adding on of certain comparables for determining the ‘Arm’s Length Price’ in the hands

The Commissioner of Income TAx-IV, vs. M/s. Mahaveer Enterprises (India) Limited

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

8 and 9 subject to appeal under Section 33 of the Act and revision by the State under Section 34 of the Act which will be discussed in some other appropriate case on merits. Page 38 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. Since on merits

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

M.Y.Maharshi vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, we do not find

transfer pricing issues have to be determined on the basis of financial sun transactions of the previous financial year relevant to the assessment year involved as mandated under Rule 10B of the Rules. Alternatively, it is submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal has been passed without any reasons and suffers from the vice of non-application of mind

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

Transfer Pricing Officer has gone into the provision of Section 92A(2) of the Act. It is further submitted that the provisions of sub- Sections (1) and (2) of Section 92A are interlinked and have been read together harmoniously and therefore, the substantial question of law framed in this appeal is required to be answered in favour of the assessee

M/S.R.S.RANGADAS vs. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are disposed of, with no order as to costs

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

8 of 26 of capital gains as Rs.14.93 Crores. Deduction under Section 54F in respect of purchase of House No.5, Golf Links, New Delhi for Rs.10.75 Crores was allowed and the balance amount of Rs.4,18,00,000/- was treated as long term capital gains. In other words, the Assessing Officer assumed the transfer price

M/S VAIBHAV vs. JOINT COMM. OF INCOME TAX RANGE 3 HYD

Appeal is allowed and the judgments and decrees passed by the

Bench: The Learned Trial Court) Was Allowed & The Judgment & Decree Dated 12.12.2000, Passed By Learned Senior Sub Judge, Kullu Was Set-Aside. (Parties Shall Hereinafter Be Referred To In

transfer of suit land in favour of the defendant? OPP. 2. Whether consideration of ₹19,000/- was written in the agreement in order to meet the requirement of stamp duty as alleged? OPP. 3. Whether the defendant has failed to construct the house as per agreement? OPP. 4. If issue No.3 is proved whether the sale deed dated

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-IV, HYDERABAD vs. M/S NAVA BHARAT VENTURES LTD., HYD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

8) and Section 80-IA (10) of the Act, 1961. He further submitted that the Assessing Officer observed that the power plants were set up for Captive C,tnsumption and the APStrE; has granted sanction only for the purpose of Captive Consumption. Since the main objective for setting up of power plant is for captive consumption, the As sessing Ofhcer

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV, HYDERABAD vs. M/S NAVA BHARAT VENTURES LTD., HYDERABAD

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

transferred from Power recovery rate of Power and ed by AP TRANSCO from at the power generattng at rates varying between er contended that the CIT(A) 5 Itta 251 2014 entitled to avail deduction under Section 8O-I of the Act, 196 1 on the proht earned from the captive consumption power plant' Though the CIT has not accepted

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

8 of 41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT concession for brokerage and DD. Charges is given,  net   realizable   rate   comes   to   Rs.118/­only.     On  this   rate,   adjusted   sale   price   will   come   to  Rs.11,80,000/­ (i.e.. 10000 x 118 = 11,80,000/­)  against Rs. 11l,05,000/­as shown by the assessee.  The loss will therefore get reduced by Rs.75,000/­  consequently

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

8 of 41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT concession for brokerage and DD. Charges is given,  net   realizable   rate   comes   to   Rs.118/­only.     On  this   rate,   adjusted   sale   price   will   come   to  Rs.11,80,000/­ (i.e.. 10000 x 118 = 11,80,000/­)  against Rs. 11l,05,000/­as shown by the assessee.  The loss will therefore get reduced by Rs.75,000/­  consequently

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

8 of 41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT concession for brokerage and DD. Charges is given,  net   realizable   rate   comes   to   Rs.118/­only.     On  this   rate,   adjusted   sale   price   will   come   to  Rs.11,80,000/­ (i.e.. 10000 x 118 = 11,80,000/­)  against Rs. 11l,05,000/­as shown by the assessee.  The loss will therefore get reduced by Rs.75,000/­  consequently

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s Pokarna Limited

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

transfer of a capital asset, Section 80IA(8) requiring adoption of market value of goods in place of the actual - - 15 sale price

Commissioner of Income tax-VI vs. M/s. Narpat Girji Constructions,

The appeal is allowed

8 - OSA No. 19 of 2015 Relevant Clauses of the Lease Agreement dated 22.01.2000:- 12. Before proceeding further, it would be apt to take note of the relevant clauses of the lease agreement dated 22.01.2000, whereby the Ex-Management of the Company in liquidation had allegedly leased the valuable land and buildings, structures and facilities, plants and machinery thereon measuring

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that there is no specific pleading of the respondents in the tenancy WP-211-2006 -15- proceedings about the relationship between the landlord Dadarao on one hand and the tenant Deorao Bajirao Thorat on the other hand. Learned counsel has submitted that a party has to take proper pleadings and prove

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

8) SCC 383 - Meghamala and Ors.-Vs-G Narasimha Reddy and Ors. 4. 2011(9) SCC 1 - K.T.Plantation Private Limited & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka”. 95. As discussed above, with reference to Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, the sale of immoveable property worth 100 or more than 100 is to be effected through registered document which invariably

The Commissioner of Income Tax-V vs. The Armed Forces Officers Co.Op Housing Society Ltd

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

transferred has to be known, the price has to be known and if any balance is payable what is that balance due. On such aspects existing then such a document will be a contract under the Indian Contract Act in view of Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act which states that all agreements are contracts if they are entered

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

Accordingly are partly allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

8 from the said judgment. Yet another judgment cited in support of said submission is Lotan Ramchandra Shimpi and others Vs. Shankar Ganpat Kayasth and others reported in 1994(4) Bom.C.R. 575 : 1996(1) Mh.L.J. 80, referring to paragraph no. 6 from the same. Himatrao Ukha Mali and others Vs. Popat Devram Patil and another reported in 1998 (3) Bom.C.R