CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty

ITA 1583/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

…115JB in order to make the provisions applicable. vi) When the charging section and the computing provision together would constitute an integrated code. In case charging section does not apply then the computation section fails. CIT vs. B C Shrinivas Setty 128 ITR 294.” 58. However, the plea of the assessee with respect to non-applicability of section 115JB to the Banking Companies was rejected by the ITAT Mumbai “B” Bench in ITA No.1767/Mum/2019 for the A.Y. 2015-16 in the case of Bank of India vs. ACIT Mumbai vide order dated 11th December, 2020. 59. There is no jurisdictional High Court decision or for tha…

Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1581/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1582/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1583/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1199/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Vs Addl. Cit, Central Accounts Office, Plot No. 5, Range-13 (Present Range-19) Sector-32, Institutional Area, New Delhi Gurgaon-122001 Dcit/Acit, Circle-19(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco0191M

For Appellant: Sh. KVSR Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR

ITA 1582/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

…115JB in order to make the provisions applicable. vi) When the charging section and the computing provision together would constitute an integrated code. In case charging section does not apply then the computation section fails. CIT vs. B C Shrinivas Setty 128 ITR 294.” 58. However, the plea of the assessee with respect to non-applicability of section 115JB to the Banking Companies was rejected by the ITAT Mumbai “B” Bench in ITA No.1767/Mum/2019 for the A.Y. 2015-16 in the case of Bank of India vs. ACIT Mumbai vide order dated 11th December, 2020. 59. There is no jurisdictional High Court decision or for tha…

Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1581/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1582/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1583/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1199/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Vs Addl. Cit, Central Accounts Office, Plot No. 5, Range-13 (Present Range-19) Sector-32, Institutional Area, New Delhi Gurgaon-122001 Dcit/Acit, Circle-19(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco0191M

For Appellant: Sh. KVSR Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR

ITA 1581/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

…115JB in order to make the provisions applicable. vi) When the charging section and the computing provision together would constitute an integrated code. In case charging section does not apply then the computation section fails. CIT vs. B C Shrinivas Setty 128 ITR 294.” 58. However, the plea of the assessee with respect to non-applicability of section 115JB to the Banking Companies was rejected by the ITAT Mumbai “B” Bench in ITA No.1767/Mum/2019 for the A.Y. 2015-16 in the case of Bank of India vs. ACIT Mumbai vide order dated 11th December, 2020. 59. There is no jurisdictional High Court decision or for tha…

Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1581/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1582/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1583/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1199/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Vs Addl. Cit, Central Accounts Office, Plot No. 5, Range-13 (Present Range-19) Sector-32, Institutional Area, New Delhi Gurgaon-122001 Dcit/Acit, Circle-19(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco0191M

For Appellant: Sh. KVSR Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR

ITA 3085/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

…115JB in order to make the provisions applicable. vi) When the charging section and the computing provision together would constitute an integrated code. In case charging section does not apply then the computation section fails. CIT vs. B C Shrinivas Setty 128 ITR 294.” 58. However, the plea of the assessee with respect to non-applicability of section 115JB to the Banking Companies was rejected by the ITAT Mumbai “B” Bench in ITA No.1767/Mum/2019 for the A.Y. 2015-16 in the case of Bank of India vs. ACIT Mumbai vide order dated 11th December, 2020. 59. There is no jurisdictional High Court decision or for tha…

25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Range -6(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2798/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito, Range-6(3)(1) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Room No.524, 5Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower 400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Range-6(3)(1) 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Room No.524, 5Th Floor, Vs. N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400013. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz2076J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala & Madhur Aggarwal Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.2798/Mum/2018 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala & MadhurFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 56(1)

…It was further submitted that in the absence of sale consideration, the computation mechanism fails and the transaction cannot be brought to tax in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 5 Taxman 1/128 ITR 294. It was also submitted that the Assessing Officer cannot substitute the sale consideration by fair market value in the absence of any such provision under the Act. Reliance was placed upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CTT v. George Henderson and Co. Ltd, [1967] 66 ITR 622 and CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. [1973] 8…

ITO 6(3)(1), Mumbai vs. 25 Fps Media Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2798/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2798/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito, Range-6(3)(1) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Room No.524, 5Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower 400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Range-6(3)(1) 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Room No.524, 5Th Floor, Vs. N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400013. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz2076J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala & Madhur Aggarwal Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.2798/Mum/2018 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala & MadhurFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 56(1)

…It was further submitted that in the absence of sale consideration, the computation mechanism fails and the transaction cannot be brought to tax in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 5 Taxman 1/128 ITR 294. It was also submitted that the Assessing Officer cannot substitute the sale consideration by fair market value in the absence of any such provision under the Act. Reliance was placed upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CTT v. George Henderson and Co. Ltd, [1967] 66 ITR 622 and CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. [1973] 8…

M/S. Karnataka Power Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 11(5), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

ITA 26/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 115JSection 80I

…stitute an integrated code. When there is a case to which computation provision cannot apply at all, it is evident that such a case was not intended to fall within charging section. [SEE:COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE VS. B.C.SHRINIVASA SETTY, 1981 VOL 128 ITR 294]. The machinery provisions provided in Sub- Section (2) of Section 115JB of the Act would be rendered wholly unworkable in case of a Banking company. It is also pertinent to mention here that the Companies Act, 1956 has excluded insurance, banking companies or the companies engaged in the generation or supply of electricity from the purview of Se…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Karnataka Power Corporation Limited, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

ITA 10/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 115JSection 80I

…stitute an integrated code. When there is a case to which computation provision cannot apply at all, it is evident that such a case was not intended to fall within charging section. [SEE:COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE VS. B.C.SHRINIVASA SETTY, 1981 VOL 128 ITR 294]. The machinery provisions provided in Sub- Section (2) of Section 115JB of the Act would be rendered wholly unworkable in case of a Banking company. It is also pertinent to mention here that the Companies Act, 1956 has excluded insurance, banking companies or the companies engaged in the generation or supply of electricity from the purview of Se…

ITO 25(2)(5), Mumbai vs. Kirit Raojibhai Patel, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the learned AO is dismissed

ITA 2339/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Sri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm The Income Tax Officer- Kirit Raojibhai Patel 25(2)(5) 5Th Floor Ram Niwas, 34, Room No. 506, C-10, Vallabhnagar, N.S. Road, Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bkc, Juhu, Vile Parele(W), Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpp3139J Assessee Represented By : Shri Rashmikant Choksey, Ar Department Represented By : Shri K.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2022

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2Section 45Section 50Section 54Section 54F

…ax. The Department's Appeal to the High Court was dismissed and that is how it approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In dealing with the rival contentions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: '(8) In 1981 this court in CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Shetty (1981) 128 ITR 294; (1981) 2 SCC 460 held that all transactions encompassed by section 45 must fall within the computation provisions of section 48. If the computation as provided under section 48 could not be applied to a particular transaction, it must be regarded as "never intended by section 45 to be the subject of the charge". In that case, the court was consi…

M/S Herbalife International India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 3168/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-I(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

ITA 2587/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N V VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2219 & 2220/Bang/2017 & 3168/Bang/2017 Assessment years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/s. Herbalife International India Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Private Ltd., of Income Tax, # 14, Commissariat Road, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore – 560 025. Bangalore. PAN: AAACH 8025R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment year: 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/s. Herbalife International India of Income Tax, Private Ltd., Circle 3(1)(2), # 14, Commissariat Road, Bangalore. B…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S Herbal Life International India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-I(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

ITA 2220/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N V VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2219 & 2220/Bang/2017 & 3168/Bang/2017 Assessment years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/s. Herbalife International India Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Private Ltd., of Income Tax, # 14, Commissariat Road, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore – 560 025. Bangalore. PAN: AAACH 8025R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment year: 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/s. Herbalife International India of Income Tax, Private Ltd., Circle 3(1)(2), # 14, Commissariat Road, Bangalore. B…

M/S Herbalife International India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-I(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

ITA 2219/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N V VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2219 & 2220/Bang/2017 & 3168/Bang/2017 Assessment years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/s. Herbalife International India Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Private Ltd., of Income Tax, # 14, Commissariat Road, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore – 560 025. Bangalore. PAN: AAACH 8025R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment year: 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/s. Herbalife International India of Income Tax, Private Ltd., Circle 3(1)(2), # 14, Commissariat Road, Bangalore. B…

M/S Herbalife International India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-I(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

ITAT/162/2021HC Calcutta08 Feb 2022

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N V VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2219 & 2220/Bang/2017 & 3168/Bang/2017 Assessment years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/s. Herbalife International India Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Private Ltd., of Income Tax, # 14, Commissariat Road, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore – 560 025. Bangalore. PAN: AAACH 8025R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment year: 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/s. Herbalife International India of Income Tax, Private Ltd., Circle 3(1)(2), # 14, Commissariat Road, Bangalore. B…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Kolkata vs. Smt. Shikha Roy

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 143(2)Section 260ASection 54ESection 54F

…OD-21 IA NO.GA/2/2021 ITAT 162/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - I, KOLKATA -Versus- SMT. SHIKHA ROY Appearance: Mr. Smarajit Roy Chowdhury, Adv. Mr. Arunava Ganguly, Adv. ...for the appellant. Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Saumya Kejriwal, Adv. Mr. G.S. Gupta, Adv. ...for the respondent. BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM -And- The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 8th February, 2022. The Court : This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Kolkata vs. M/S. Eih Ltd

ITAT/39/2020HC Calcutta17 Jan 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 14ASection 194HSection 195Section 2Section 2(47)Section 260ASection 40Section 50BSection 9(1)

…is not in dispute that the transfer of the business undertaking as a going concern constitutes transfer of capital asset. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.C. Srinivasa Setty, reported in (1981) 128 ITR 294 (SC) and on facts found that the two specified hotels which were transferred as going concerns by way of exchange of shares and debentures, the 8 cost of acquisition of the undertaking and the date of such acquisition cannot be ascertained and in such a case, such a transfer cannot be brought within the purview of Section 45 of the Act. The Tri…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. Adunuru Pallavi Reddy, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue dismissed

ITA 531/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri A.Mohan Alankamonyappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghu Ram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR

ITA 530/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

…toward developmental activities. Hence, the capital gains cannot be brought to tax in the year under appeal.” 6.3.7.1 It may also be relevant to mention here that without computation the charging section may fail as held in case of CIT Vs. BC Srinivasa Setty 128 ITR 294 (SC) and in this case, the consideration held to be not determined without there being any permissions from the Authorities concerned and execution of Agreement during the year under reference. 6.3.8. Thus, going by the facts of the case, where the conditions stipulated as per the provisions of sec.53A of TP Act, were not fully fulfilled as in th…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. Nagam Shashidhar Reddy, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri A.Mohan Alankamonyappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghu Ram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR

ITA 529/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

…toward developmental activities. Hence, the capital gains cannot be brought to tax in the year under appeal.” 6.3.7.1 It may also be relevant to mention here that without computation the charging section may fail as held in case of CIT Vs. BC Srinivasa Setty 128 ITR 294 (SC) and in this case, the consideration held to be not determined without there being any permissions from the Authorities concerned and execution of Agreement during the year under reference. 6.3.8. Thus, going by the facts of the case, where the conditions stipulated as per the provisions of sec.53A of TP Act, were not fully fulfilled as in th…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. Nagam Dinakar Reddy, Hyderabad, Secunderabad

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri A.Mohan Alankamonyappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghu Ram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR

ITA 528/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

…toward developmental activities. Hence, the capital gains cannot be brought to tax in the year under appeal.” 6.3.7.1 It may also be relevant to mention here that without computation the charging section may fail as held in case of CIT Vs. BC Srinivasa Setty 128 ITR 294 (SC) and in this case, the consideration held to be not determined without there being any permissions from the Authorities concerned and execution of Agreement during the year under reference. 6.3.8. Thus, going by the facts of the case, where the conditions stipulated as per the provisions of sec.53A of TP Act, were not fully fulfilled as in th…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. Nagam Suguna, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri A.Mohan Alankamonyappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghu Ram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR