M/S. PATIDAR HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 2(1), UJJAIN

In the result, ITA No.1007/Ind/2016 is partly allowed, is allowed and ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Capital gain is an independent and different source of income and was not the subject matter of appeal before him nor was the issue considered by the Assessing Officer by framing an assessment order. Instead the Assessing Officer termed the same as commission on the sale of land. Thus, order of the Commissioner (Appeals) could not be sustained. The Commissioner

M/S PATIDAR HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 2(1), UJJAIN

In the result, ITA No.1007/Ind/2016 is partly allowed, is allowed and ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Capital gain is an independent and different source of income and was not the subject matter of appeal before him nor was the issue considered by the Assessing Officer by framing an assessment order. Instead the Assessing Officer termed the same as commission on the sale of land. Thus, order of the Commissioner (Appeals) could not be sustained. The Commissioner

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

capital assets. The waiver of loan is not equivalent to reimbursement or a grant or a subsidy. Hence, it is held that the waiver does not fall within the ambit of explanation (10) to section 43(1) or proviso thereof. Therefore, following the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT Vs. Kochin

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

capital assets. The waiver of loan is not equivalent to reimbursement or a grant or a subsidy. Hence, it is held that the waiver does not fall within the ambit of explanation (10) to section 43(1) or proviso thereof. Therefore, following the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT Vs. Kochin

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

capital assets. The waiver of loan is not equivalent to reimbursement or a grant or a subsidy. Hence, it is held that the waiver does not fall within the ambit of explanation (10) to section 43(1) or proviso thereof. Therefore, following the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT Vs. Kochin

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

capital assets. The waiver of loan is not equivalent to reimbursement or a grant or a subsidy. Hence, it is held that the waiver does not fall within the ambit of explanation (10) to section 43(1) or proviso thereof. Therefore, following the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT Vs. Kochin

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

capital assets. The waiver of loan is not equivalent to reimbursement or a grant or a subsidy. Hence, it is held that the waiver does not fall within the ambit of explanation (10) to section 43(1) or proviso thereof. Therefore, following the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT Vs. Kochin

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

capital assets. The waiver of loan is not equivalent to reimbursement or a grant or a subsidy. Hence, it is held that the waiver does not fall within the ambit of explanation (10) to section 43(1) or proviso thereof. Therefore, following the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT Vs. Kochin

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

capital assets. The waiver of loan is not equivalent to reimbursement or a grant or a subsidy. Hence, it is held that the waiver does not fall within the ambit of explanation (10) to section 43(1) or proviso thereof. Therefore, following the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT Vs. Kochin

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

capital assets. The waiver of loan is not equivalent to reimbursement or a grant or a subsidy. Hence, it is held that the waiver does not fall within the ambit of explanation (10) to section 43(1) or proviso thereof. Therefore, following the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT Vs. Kochin

SIGMA CHEMTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

Gain\nYr.\nSet Off of Unabsorbed Capital Loss\nAstt.\nLong Term\nEarlier Assessed\nCapital Loss\nOr Short Term\n2011-2012\n0\n318806\nTotal Loss\n0\n318806\nSet-Off\n0\n0\nBalance C/F\n0\n318806\nTotal Income\n12902563\nNet. Assessable Income of the Assessee is thus Rs.12902560\nPage 1 of 4 (SIGMA CHEMTRADE PVT. LTD. - Asst. Yr.: 2017-2018)\n12902563

SAHARAYN UNIVERSAL MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

43B also being payment of the SEBI fees but made\non 9th May, 2003 1.e. in the assessment year in question. The respondent, in its\nresponse to the AO, stated inter-alia, as under:\nFurther the assessee company had made another payment of SEBI fees of Rs.\n40,00,000/-on 09.5.2003 which pertains to provisions made

M/S. MANISH FILMS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ITO 3(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2010-11

capital gain of Rs.80,58,000/- on the ground that provisions of section 50C of the I.T. Act, 1961 [ITA 152/Ind/2015] [M/s. Manish Films Pvt. Ltd., Indore] were not applicable to transfer of land and building being a lease hold property”. The said question was dismissed on the ground that the revenue had not preferred any appeal against the order