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

transferred to other Nortel Group Companies including the Assessee. 16. The AO was of the view that the Assessee had been incorporated solely with the sole motive to evade the taxes arising out of supply contract in India and in substance, the contracts were performed by Nortel Canada along with its LO and Nortel India, who acted in unison

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

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

Transfer Pricing Officer had not verified whether the expenditure claimed was correct. Recording the aforesaid findings, the Assessing Officer disallowed the entire claim of Rs.1,48,89,090/- under section 10A of the Act. 5. The aforesaid addition was deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who observed that the respondent-assessee was maintaining separate accounts for STPI

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA vs. M/S. PADMAVATHI MANSION (P) LTD., VIJAYAWADA

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

SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN IT(TP)A NO.160/BANG/2014 DATED 28-02-2017 ANNEXURE - D CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BENGALURU & ETC. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY Dr. VINEET KOTHARI J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- JUDGMENT Mr.Aravind

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

loss. 8. Assessment Order records that to investigate, whether this was a case of legitimate tax planning or tax evasion and whether the transaction was genuine, notices under Section 131 of the Act were issued to NIIT. Further, investigation had revealed that the assessee had lodged 76,000 and 24,000 equity shares statedly sold to M/s GIPL on 14th

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

Accordingly are partly allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

loss of possession. The transfer by subsequent purchaser who himself purchased it in 1966 can not confer upon petitioner any such cause of action. ” 14. He also purports to invite attention to paragraph no. 15 of Radhu Gokul Gawali and others V/s. Mohan Kishan Gawali and others 19 LPA-22-2008+ reported in 2007 (6) Mh.L.J. 117 cited by learned

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/S.B.KRISHNA MURTHY KAKINADA AND 2 ORS

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

loss or damage caused to HCL due to such inaccuracies. This was subject to confidentiality provisions of Article 4. Further, tangible technical information relating to in Exhibit 3 (a document not filed) was required to be furnished to HCL from time to time during the term of the agreement without any additional lumpsum payment. Thus, upgradation of tangible technical information

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

set aside the assessments and directed the Assessing Officer to consider the law laid down by Supreme Court in 'CIT Vs. T.V.SUNDARAM IYENGAR AND SONS LTD.' (1996) 222 ITR 344 (SC) and decision of the Bombay High Court in 'SOLID CONTAINERS LTD. Vs. DCIT & ANR.' 308 ITR 417. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal

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

set aside and consequently, the suit of the plaintiff came to be decreed as prayed for declaring that the sale deed dated 16-2-1992 executed by 1st defendant –Mme Devika Rani Roerich in favour of plaintiff-Company is valid and binding and restraining the defendants from transferring the suit schedule property to any Trust, Society or any other person

PRL COMMR OF INCOME TAX-5, vs. M/S SOMESWARA CEMETS AND CHEMICALS LTD., HYD

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

SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN IT(TP)A NO. 879/BANG/2013 DATED:16.03.2016 ANNEXURE – D CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING

The COmmissioner of Income Tax -IV vs. Nagarjuna Aqua Exports Ltd.,

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN IT[TP]A NO.460/BANG/2013 DATED 22.02.2017 ANNEXURE-D CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BENGALURU AND ETC. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, Dr. VINEET KOTHARI, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING

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 COMMR.OF INCOME TAX RAJHMUNDRY vs. M/S Y.RAMAKRISHNA AND ORS.

The appeal is allowed

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

transfer of shares and sale of rights entitlement of partly convertible debentures (PCD'S) is income from capital gains and not income from business? ii) Whether the ITAT was right in holding that the assessee had incurred loss on sale of its entitlement to acquire partly convertible debentures and the assessee is entitled to set off the alleged loss from

Comissioner of Income Tax, vs. P. Ramakrishna Prasad (HUF),

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

prices were raising and incurred a loss of `.6,00,000/- and they are therefore accountable to the plaintiff. The friend of the plaintiff late Donald Graham had bequeathed a sum of `.10,00,000/- to the plaintiff which he received and paid in full to the third defendant Smt.Shwetha Goutham by way of gift. The partition

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Hyderabad House Pvt Ltd.,

price index for industrial workers [CPI (IW)]. The view in Kamla Devi (supra) was followed in a number of subsequent decisions of this Court in cases reported as Ashwani Gupta v. Government of India & Ors. 117 (2005) DLT 112; Tasleema v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. ILR (2009) 6 Del 486 : (2009) 161 DLT 660 (DB); Nagrik Sangarsh Samiti

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

Smt.Sudia Indira vs. The Income Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal from order stand dismissed

set   out   in   the   agreement.     The   first   important   condition   is  condition No.3.   The said condition No.3 makes it clear that the time  limit of the Banakhat i.e. contract of sale was fixed for four months.  Similarly, condition No.4 makes it clear that the payment of sale price  Page 11 of 21 C/AO/442/2012 CAV JUDGEMNT was not dependent on handing over