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-V vs. The Armed Forces Officers Co.Op Housing Society Ltd

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

price, and since all of these aspects are found in the two documents dated 25.9.2006 Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2, hence I hold that these documents are complete contracts under the Indian Contract Act. CS(OS) No. 78/2007 Page 11 of 43 12(i) The argument urged on behalf of the learned counsel for the defendants that these documents cannot be said

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

M\S.CHENNAKESAVA VIJAYAWADA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VIJAYAWAD

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

92,20,90,752/=, the TDS deductible @ 2% was Rs. 1,84,41,814/=. The appellant-Company, while submitting a letter dated 18th May 1998 providing the details of payments made to Messrs. Essar Projects Limited, made a mention of payment made towards procurement of material to the tune of Rs. 72.60 Crores. The I.T.O with regard to the supply

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

92,O4,8911- to Rs.7,57,4 provisions of Section 8OJA(8) and 1961. He further submitted that that the power plants were set uP the APSEB has granted sanction o Consumption. Since the main obj plant is for captive. consumP disallowed the entire claim of ded the Act, 1961. 5. On the other hand, le while supporting the orders

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

92,O4,891/- to Rs.7,57,48,992/- by invoking the provisions of Section B0-IA(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 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

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax [Central] vs. M/s Nallamala Agro Farms Pvt Ltd.,

Bench: J. UMA DEVI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

Transfer Pricing Officer to exclude M/s. Persistent Systems Ltd., as its RPT is 15.47 and to include Thinksoft Global Services Ltd., even without proper application of principles for adopting the same? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right Date of Judgment 18-07-2018, ITA No.170/2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Laila Impex,

Accordingly answered against the Revenue. The appeals fail and are dismissed, without

price paid by the customer to the assessee and states that this is disproportionately high in comparison to the cost incurred by the assessee for the transponder. This according to the AO lead to an inference that the customers are compensating the assessee for not only the transponder cost but also the cost of the satellite. The AO did this

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

price of khair wood. 4. It is the petitioner’s case that, since the Corporation issued bills in their favour and provided them a transit pass to transport khair wood from their Chiriyapur Depot in the State of Uttarakhand to the petitioner’s address at Nazibabad in the State of Uttar Pradesh, it was evident that the goods moved from

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5 vs. M/s Vijay Textiles Limited

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

price of Rs.150/- sq.ft for the land has been fixed, but land was the capital to be introduced by the 32 assessee for the purpose of endeavor. That assessee had considerable stake, is clear from the fact that asseessee was obliged to offer the land as security for raising loans. Assessee had parted with possession with clear knowledge that

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

Shri Maneklal Agarwal vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed and

Bench: A RAMALINGESWARA RAO,DILIP B. BHOSALE

prices during the last three decades. 20 CFA Nos. 1/2005 & 2/2005 26. In these circumstances, grant of decree of specific performance in favour of the respondent when he has paid only a paltry sum of Rs.100 lacs to the appellants and has defaulted in payment of Rs.1.50 lacs within the time stipulated in the agreement, would not be a proper

INCOME TAX BANGALORE vs. SHALINI BHUPAL

Appeal is dismissed

transfer, in either case, had been made at the market value of such goods as on that date : Provided that where, in the opinion of the [Assessing] Officer, the computation of the profits and gains of the industrial undertaking or the business of the hotel or the operation of the ship [or the business of repairs to ocean-going vessels

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

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

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 their

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

price of the jewellery stolen in a robbery or a burglary was therefore expenditure for the purpose of the business. There can be no doubt that the expenditure was wholly and exclusively in the interest of the business. The expenditure was laid out for no other purpose.” 33. Applying the law explained by the Supreme Court in the above decisions

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

price of the jewellery stolen in a robbery or a burglary was therefore expenditure for the purpose of the business. There can be no doubt that the expenditure was wholly and exclusively in the interest of the business. The expenditure was laid out for no other purpose.” 33. Applying the law explained by the Supreme Court in the above decisions