Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 or any other bank being a bank included in Second Schedule to Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and the like. The breach of Section 11(5) would attract Section 13(1)(d) of the IT Act and the benefit under Sections 11 and 12 would not be available if funds are deposited or invested

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

The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) vs. Madhu Enterprises

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

VII, Adityapur Industrial Area, Jamshedpur through its Managing Director- cum-Authorized Signatory Atul Taunk ..... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi 2. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Administration), Jamshedpur Division, Jamshedpur 3. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Adityapur Circle), Jamshedpur .…. … Respondents With W.P.(T) No.3950

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

VII, Adityapur Industrial Area, Jamshedpur through its Managing Director- cum-Authorized Signatory Atul Taunk ..... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi 2. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Administration), Jamshedpur Division, Jamshedpur 3. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Adityapur Circle), Jamshedpur .…. … Respondents With W.P.(T) No.3950

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-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

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. New Bombay Goods Transport

9, 2000 (when the State of Uttarakhand came into being), for the use in (a) the manufacture of goods, and (b) in the packing of goods manufactured by him; (vii) on fulfillment of these conditions, tax shall be calculated at such rates as would have been leviable on such sales against Form 3-B prescribed under

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

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. M/S GOLDEN STAR FACILITIES AND SERVICES PVT LTD., HYD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

VII – regulation of mines and minerals development to the extent to which such regulation, and development under the control of the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest; and therefore, the State Government have no manner of power to legislate in the subject. 57. He further submitted that by virtue of the powers

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

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

vii) As per clause (11) in the event of the entire sale consideration as agreed is paid inspite of the fact that the Sale Deed is not registered, the purchaser shall be put into possession of the schedule property By the vendors. I I t T 11 il rl Purchaser in adhering to the said schedule of payment, taking over

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Natco Exports Ltd.

In the result, the judgment and decree passed by the

price of the land as per the circle rate fixed by the Government and would not mention the entire consideration money of Rs. 3,35,000/- because it would cost them higher stamp fee and court fee and they may be involved in income tax. They further stated that at the request of the plaintiffs they executed the sale deeds

Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. The Agrasen Coop. Urban Bank Ltd.,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

vii), the rules and bye-laws of the society restrict the voting rights to the following classes of its members, namely:— (1) the individuals who contribute their labour or, as the case may be, carry on the fishing or allied activities; (2) the cooperative credit societies which provide financial assistance to the society; (3) the State Government; (4) The provisions

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/s. The A.P.Vardhaman(Mahila)Cooperative Urban

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

vii), the rules and bye-laws of the society restrict the voting rights to the following classes of its members, namely:— (1) the individuals who contribute their labour or, as the case may be, carry on the fishing or allied activities; (2) the cooperative credit societies which provide financial assistance to the society; (3) the State Government; (4) The provisions

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S The A.P.Mahesh Coop. Urban Bank Ltd,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

vii), the rules and bye-laws of the society restrict the voting rights to the following classes of its members, namely:— (1) the individuals who contribute their labour or, as the case may be, carry on the fishing or allied activities; (2) the cooperative credit societies which provide financial assistance to the society; (3) the State Government; (4) The provisions

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. The Andhra Bank Employees Co.Operative Bank Limited

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

vii), the rules and bye-laws of the society restrict the voting rights to the following classes of its members, namely:— (1) the individuals who contribute their labour or, as the case may be, carry on the fishing or allied activities; (2) the cooperative credit societies which provide financial assistance to the society; (3) the State Government; (4) The provisions

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s. Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Ltd.,

9. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contends that the petitioner failed to prove his bonafide requirement by any cogent and convincing evidence. The evidence led to some extent was beyond pleadings. There were constant improvements in the evidence. Thus, the learned Trial Court rightly rejected the plea of bonafide requirement. Neither the details of the family

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