THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ABB LTD

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

capital value of the asset and not any profit or gain.” 14. In the case of Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works V/s. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore [(2015) 62 taxmann.com 400 (SC)], the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that under heading, business

M/S EMBASSY BRINDAVAN DEVELOPERS vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Capital Gains or as its income from business and thereby gave a perverse finding? - 3 - ITA No. 713 of 2017 (iii) the Tribunal

V.S. CHANDRASHEKAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the first substantial question of law is

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

income from capital gains' and 3 not under the head 'profit and gains from business or profession? (iii) Whether on the facts

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S IND SING DEVELOPERS PVT LTD,

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: JAYANT BANERJI,S.G.PANDIT

business income as against the assessee's treatment as part of income as receipt from capital gains and part of it as capital

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIT (A) vs. SHRI J KRISHNA PALEMAR

Appeal is allowed;

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

Income from house property”, other than the new asset. - 11 - ITA No. 546/2018 Explanation.- For the purpose of this section,- (i) “long-term capital asset” means a capital asset which is not a short-term capital asset; (ii) “net consideration”, in relation to the transfer of a capital asset, means the full value of the consideration received or accruing

SHRI. SHANKARLAL GILADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

Bench: G.NARENDAR,M.NAGAPRASANNA

gains from business and profession”. What happens is that, in the process, when the shares are held as “stock-in-trade”, certain dividend is also earned, though incidentally, which is also an income. However, by virtue of Section 10(34) of the Act, this dividend income is not to be included in the total income and is exempt from

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee, laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains

M/S. EVERGREEN HARDWARE STORES vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Capital gains added by the Assessing Officer is not sustainable. 15. Re-Disallowance of premium on Insurance Policy Rs.3,33,333/- I.T.A No.201/2017 13 Assessee Firm had taken a Insurance Policy on its Partner Shri. Aeranpurwala. The assessee has held that Shri. Aeranpurwala had become a Director of another Company in which the business was carried on. Assessee contended before

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

business 45,96,38,679 Interest Income Smt.Lakshmi Aruna 2,42,26,434 Ms.G.Bramhani (Minor daughter) 9,90,386 Master G.Kireeti (Minor son) 6,33,782 2,58,50,602 Gross Total Income 48,73,08,092 Tax thereon 14,60,43,427 Add:Education Cess @ 3% 43,81,302 Total tax 15,04,24,729 Less

M/S BEST TRADING & AGENCIES LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

capital asset sold during the year. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by an order dated 05.10.2009 inter alia held that there is a close nexus between the interest earned on the fixed deposits and the interest paid to the lenders and the creditors

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S SYNDICATE BANK

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

business. The assessee filed return of income on 24.11.2003 along with audit report under Section 44AB of the Act, declaring income of Rs.293,25,57,628/- for Assessment year 2003-04. The Return was processed under Section 143(1) on 05.04.2004 and an order of refund of Rs.82,69,52,235/- was determined and an order of refund of Rs.82.50

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI C RAMAIAH REDDY

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

capital gain of RS.7,41,04,606/- for Assessment year 2012-13? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal was correct in law in holding that the cost of the properties received in partial partition of HUF to be adopted as claimed by the assessee under Section 37(1) of the Income

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD

In the result, the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

business, invests the surplus fund in its hand for purchase of land or house property and later sells it at profit, the gain made by the company will be assessable under the head ‘Capital gains’. Similarly, if a company purchases a rented house and gets rent, such rent will be assessable to tax under s. 22 as income

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD

In the result, the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

business, invests the surplus fund in its hand for purchase of land or house property and later sells it at profit, the gain made by the company will be assessable under the head ‘Capital gains’. Similarly, if a company purchases a rented house and gets rent, such rent will be assessable to tax under s. 22 as income

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GALI JANARDHANA REDDY

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

business 45,96,38,679 Interest Income Smt.Lakshmi Aruna 2,42,26,434 Ms.G.Bramhani (Minor daughter) 9,90,386 Master G.Kireeti (Minor son) 6,33,782 2,58,50,602 Gross Total Income 48,73,08,092 Tax thereon 14,60,43,427 Add:Education Cess @ 3% 43,81,302 Total tax 15,04,24,729 Less

M/S. KEMFIN SERVICES PVT LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

business income and not as capital gains? 3 3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the parties

PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD.,

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

business of software development and sale of software product licence, software maintenance and training in software. For the sake of brevity, facts from I.T.A.No.199/2017 are being referred to. The assessee filed the return of income for the Assessment Year 2009-10 after claiming brought forward losses and declared its income as ‘NIL’. The return of income was processed

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

business of software development and sale of software product licence, software maintenance and training in software. For the sake of brevity, facts from I.T.A.No.199/2017 are being referred to. The assessee filed the return of income for the Assessment Year 2009-10 after claiming brought forward losses and declared its income as ‘NIL’. The return of income was processed