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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

price in the absence of any evidence of understatement of the value. Therefore, the said finding recorded by the Assessing Authority was also set-aside and the appeal was allowed. 7. Aggrieved by the said order, revenue preferred an appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal held that it is an undisputed fact that the assessee had developed

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

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

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

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, vs. Rangaraya Medical College Old Students Association

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

83 OF 200s) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To direct the respondents 1 and 2 not to disconnect the power stipply.in connection with the consumption of surplus power by the petitioner relating to stage-ll as per the allocation

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.

Transfer) Act, 1963, or the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970 and therefore, there was a provision for execution of the Sale Deed, which even otherwise the builder could have got executed in favour of any person on the basis of the irrevocable Power of CS(OS) No.486/2011 Page 45 Attorney executed by the owners. These facts clearly distinguish the said

Khorshed Shapoor Chenai vs. Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax,

Appeal stands disposed of setting aside the impugned

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

83 dated April 23, 1983, which had already been obtained by the appellant when the agreement Ex.P-1 was executed on December 07, 1984 had sanctioned a ground floor and a first floor having covered area 1699 sq.ft.; a basement of equal area and a barsati floor ad- measuring 307.27sq. ft. 12. The appellant received various amounts in installments from

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

price. 27. In that view of the matter, as it is admitted case of the petitioner that the electricity generated in 540 MW Power Plant is used in the course of or furtherance of his business, which is evident from Form G provided by the taxpayer i.e. the petitioner herein, the petitioner would not be entitled for ITC to electrical

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

price. 27. In that view of the matter, as it is admitted case of the petitioner that the electricity generated in 540 MW Power Plant is used in the course of or furtherance of his business, which is evident from Form G provided by the taxpayer i.e. the petitioner herein, the petitioner would not be entitled for ITC to electrical

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

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

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

83 of 300 APLs to act by majority is contrary to law and to the order of appointment of the APLs. 23. It is submitted that the decision of two of the APLs to re-investigate into the extent of the estate and percentage of share holding is beyond their authority and contrary to the unanimous inventory report

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agriculturel Market Committee,

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

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

83, 'CIT Vs./ MAX INDIA LTD.' (2007) 295 ITR 0282 (SC), SOLID CONTAINERS LTD, supra, 'CHIEF CIT Vs. KESARIA TEA CO. LTD.' (2002) 254 ITR 0434 (SC), 'CIT Vs. CHEMSWORTH (P) LTD.' (2020) 275 TAXMAN 408 (KAR), 'CIT & ANR. Vs. AZTEC SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY LTD.' (2020) 428 ITR 245 (KAR), 'PRL. CIT Vs. N.K.PROTEINS

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

The appeals are dismissed

83 26 Total of 10 products groups 1628 526 2154 76 32 Total of 440 Units paying more than 50% duty in PLA 2108 673 2781 76 32 (All India Non-POL items) Total of 587 Units in these areas 2427 16. The percentage of excise duty paid in the exempted areas is highest when compared to similar industries

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

In the result, the appeals are allowed

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

price and on such terms as he may deem fit and was not under any obligation requiring the purchaser thereof to enter into any agreement with the operator (assessee) for the purpose of operating and managing the hotel or otherwise and in its return, agreed consideration was as stated above in cl. X. on the basis of the said agreement