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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

91,502/­. 15. In paragraph 12 of the assessment order  it has been mentioned by Assessing Officer  that according to the assessment order for  Asst.   Year   1991­92   read   with   order   under  section 154 there is no carry forward loss,  therefore, no set off of the same is given.” 9.4. Referring to the above facts which are not in  dispute

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

91,502/­. 15. In paragraph 12 of the assessment order  it has been mentioned by Assessing Officer  that according to the assessment order for  Asst.   Year   1991­92   read   with   order   under  section 154 there is no carry forward loss,  therefore, no set off of the same is given.” 9.4. Referring to the above facts which are not in  dispute

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

91,502/­. 15. In paragraph 12 of the assessment order  it has been mentioned by Assessing Officer  that according to the assessment order for  Asst.   Year   1991­92   read   with   order   under  section 154 there is no carry forward loss,  therefore, no set off of the same is given.” 9.4. Referring to the above facts which are not in  dispute

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, reads as under: 54. “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.— 3Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case

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

Accordingly are partly allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

91 of Hyderabad Tenancy Act. There was no jurisdictional error and there is nothing on the record to show that some material was not considered either by the Tahsildar or by the first appellate authority. Thus, the facts do not justify invocation of Article 226 of Constitution of India. In view of these circumstances, in the present matter, it needs

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-IV, HYDERABAD vs. M/S NAVA BHARAT VENTURES LTD., HYDERABAD

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

91,17,39 1/- under Section 80-IA of the Act, 196 1 in respect of profits from power generation units of different Villages. In support of deduction, the assesse has filed Form No.lO CCB, dated 27.1L.2OO6, for each unit. During the assessment proceedings by the Assessing Officer, the assessee 2 claimed 100% deduction under Se under which

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

91,I7,391/- under Section 8O-IA of the Act, 1961 in respect of profits from power generation units of different Villages. In support of deduction, the assesse has filed Form No.lO CCB, dated 27.11.2006, for each unit. During the assessment proceedings by the Assessing Ofhcer, the assessee 2 It.d 251 2014 claimed 1t)0('/o deduction under Section

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-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

transfer to the reserve fund a sum equivalent not less than 20% of such profit. Further, under Section 18 of the BR Act, every banking company, not being a scheduled bank, shall maintain cash reserve with itself or by way of balance in a current account with the RBI. Such cash reserve shall be equivalent to at least

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

transfer to the reserve fund a sum equivalent not less than 20% of such profit. Further, under Section 18 of the BR Act, every banking company, not being a scheduled bank, shall maintain cash reserve with itself or by way of balance in a current account with the RBI. Such cash reserve shall be equivalent to at least

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

transfer to the reserve fund a sum equivalent not less than 20% of such profit. Further, under Section 18 of the BR Act, every banking company, not being a scheduled bank, shall maintain cash reserve with itself or by way of balance in a current account with the RBI. Such cash reserve shall be equivalent to at least

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

transfer to the reserve fund a sum equivalent not less than 20% of such profit. Further, under Section 18 of the BR Act, every banking company, not being a scheduled bank, shall maintain cash reserve with itself or by way of balance in a current account with the RBI. Such cash reserve shall be equivalent to at least

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

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

91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 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

Commissioner of Income-Tax, vs. Rangaraya Medical College Old Students Association

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

91 60 of 2004 dt. 6.1 2.2004. on the fi le of the High Court. l.A. NO: zOF 2OOS(WAMP. NO: 1717 OF 20051 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 suspend the judgment under appeal pending the disposal

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

Appeal stands disposed of setting aside the impugned

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

price. It was pleaded that the bank was ready and willing to pay the balance consideration. 16. Upon being served with the summons for settlement of issues, the appellant raised, by way of preliminary objection No.1, the defence that the agreement Ex.P-1 was a loan transaction; camouflaged in the language as desired by the officers of the respondent. To bring