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

In the result, we do not find

9. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. Section 10B deals with determination of Arms Length Price under Section 92C of the Act. In the instant case, the assessee 12 had calculated the rate of interest at 7.50% and 8.49%. However, the Assessing Officer has scaled down the same

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), vs. M/s Country Club Inda Limited

Section 9(1)(i) of the Act, no part of Assessee‘s income could be brought to tax under the Act. It is only when a non-resident Assessee‘s income is taxable under the Act that the question whether any benefit under the Double Taxation Avoidance Treaty is required to be examined. 45. In Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries

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

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 80IA(8) requiring adoption of market value of goods in place of the actual - - 15 sale price in the cases of certain specified sales, and the transfer pricing rules, it held the Assessing Authority does not have the power to substitute the value for the actual sale price in the absence of any evidence of understatement of the value

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

9. Upon exhaustive and detailed examination, the Assessing Officer concluded that non-cumulative preference shares were not allotted and was a sham and a cover up to show that the transfer was on 14th August, 1997 to justify sale price of Rs.450/-, when the fair market value of each share of NIIT prevailing on the date of transfer, i.e. 30th

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

Section 55 (4) (b) of the Transfer of Property Act which are set out below:- "55. In the absence of a contract to the contrary the buyer and seller of immovable property respectively are subject to the liabilities, and have the rights, mentioned in the rules next following, or such of them as are applicable to the property sold

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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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, we have found

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

price  lower than the market rate. If that be so,  the   question   of   inflating   the   loss   by  transferring   the   shares   to   group   company  would   not   arise.   Under   ordinary  circumstances,   it   is   always   open   to   the  assessee in his own wisdom to either hold on  to certain bunch of shares or to sell the  same to avoid further loss

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

price  lower than the market rate. If that be so,  the   question   of   inflating   the   loss   by  transferring   the   shares   to   group   company  would   not   arise.   Under   ordinary  circumstances,   it   is   always   open   to   the  assessee in his own wisdom to either hold on  to certain bunch of shares or to sell the  same to avoid further loss

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

price  lower than the market rate. If that be so,  the   question   of   inflating   the   loss   by  transferring   the   shares   to   group   company  would   not   arise.   Under   ordinary  circumstances,   it   is   always   open   to   the  assessee in his own wisdom to either hold on  to certain bunch of shares or to sell the  same to avoid further loss

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

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

The appeal is allowed

Section 457 of the Companies Act r/w Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules. In Paragraph 11 of the said application, KIAMS submitted that the it would be constrained to get the property transferred into their name immediately, failing which, the Institution would not be recognized. It was also said that they were willing

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

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

9 (4-16), 12 (4-16), 13/1 (0-11) and 27(0-4). CS(OS) No. 78/2007 Page 2 of 43 2. The case of the plaintiff is that the four defendants had equal 1/4th co-ownership rights in the suit land and which suit land was agreed to be sold for a total price of Rs.5

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

9. Thus, the basic pleadings are their denying the status of deceased Deorao Bajirao Thorat as a tenant over the suit land. So far as the said Regular Civil Suit No. 98 of 1975 instituted by deceased Deorao is concerned, it was simplicitor suit for a decree of perpetual injunction. As such, the defendants have raised the plea

INCOME TAX BANGALORE vs. SHALINI BHUPAL

Appeal is dismissed

9 (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, the profits and gains of an industrial undertaking or a ship or the business of a hotel [or the business of repairs to ocean-going vessels or other powered craft] to which the provisions of sub-section (1) apply shall, for the purposes of determining the quantum

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax vs. D.L.V. Sridhar

Bench: D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

9 in the unallocated segment should have been allocated to exempt segment. The Assessing Officer noticed that the Transfer Pricing Officer had accepted the price charged as Arms Length Price, but this he observed did not matter for the Transfer Pricing Officer had not verified whether the expenditure claimed was correct. Recording the aforesaid findings, the Assessing Officer disallowed

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

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 supposes that it shall be in writing and 90 sufficient non judicial stamp shall

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

price component is already paid and what remains to be paid is Rs.49,80,000/-. Vouchsafing the title to property is a predominant obligation of the vendor, vide condition Nos.6, 7 & 8 in Ex.P4, is not disputed before us. Paragraph 2 stipulates that the plaintiff has to pay this amount in two installments: First installment of Rs.34