M/S BAGMANE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

income and capital gain at Rs.56,97,511/-. The Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings found that the difference shown out of the sale of property could not be termed as ‘capital gain’ and could be termed as only ‘business

THE COMMR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S DYNAMIC ENTERPRISE

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: This Bench.

capital it cannot be said that any income or gain arises or accrues to the assessee in the true commercial sense which a business

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

business income and not short term capital gain. Thus, the transactions, 5 were treated as business income and an order

P VIKRAM MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

gain after availing the indexation benefit. The amount of Rs.4,00,00,000/- received by the assessee from M/s. MTR Food Product for patent right is chargeable to tax as income from business as stipulated u/s. 28[va][b] of the Income-tax Act. Whereas the assessee has misrepresented the fact treating the amount received as long term capital

P ARVIND MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

gain after availing the indexation benefit. The amount of Rs.4,00,00,000/- received by the assessee from M/s. MTR Food Product for patent right is chargeable to tax as income from business as stipulated u/s. 28[va][b] of the Income-tax Act. Whereas the assessee has misrepresented the fact treating the amount received as long term capital

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ASSOCIATED ELECTRONIC AND ELCTRICAL

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

business, the cost of acquisition shall be taken to be ‘Nil’. 6 4. The learned Counsel would vehemently contend that the Tribunal wrongly interpreting the relevant provisions of the Act, reversed the findings of the Authorities while determining the assessment of income to capital gains

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S SUBHASH KABINI POWER CORPORATION LIMITED

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

Income Tax issued notice under Section 263 of the Act stating that the Assessing Officer was not justified in treating the sale as long term capital gain and according to him, it should have been treated as short term capital gain. The assessee filed his reply to the show cause notice. Thereafter, the Commissioner proceeded to pass the order setting

THE COMMR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S NADATUR HOLDINGS AND INVESTMENTS PVT LTD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

capital gains’ and not under the head ‘income from business’ when the assessee was carrying on the business in trading

M/S FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Capital Gains in the hands of the Holding Company (Mauritius Company) was also not chargeable to tax in India as per the provisions of Article 13(4) of the Indo-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). Date of Judgment :23-07-2018 I.T.A.No.512/2017 M/s. Fidelity Business Services India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S EXIDE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Capital gains” or “Income from other sources”, or in section 199 or in [sections 28 to 43B], the profits and gains of any business

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S EXIDE LIFE INSURANCE CO LTD

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Capital gains” or “Income from other sources”, or in section 199 or in [sections 28 to 43B], the profits and gains of any business

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HMA DATA SYSTEMS P LTD.,

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

income from the long term capital gains and cannot be allowed while computing the business income. The said finding of fact

M/S HMA DATA SYSTEM P LTD., vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

income from the long term capital gains and cannot be allowed while computing the business income. The said finding of fact

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GMR HOLDINGS PVT LTD.,

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

income. 3. The learned Tribunal has also held that the business loss of the assessee was set-off against the capital gains

PR COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX-6 vs. M R KODANDRAM

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,ASHOK S.KINAGI

capital gains, quantifying the sale consideration as the cost of construction of 26% of constructed area and allotted to the assessee as per the JDA dated 11.5.2009 treating the cost of construction as the full value of consideration. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which came to be allowed considering the guidance

SRI HARIRAM HOTELS P LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (III)

Appeal is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

capital gain should be included for the purpose of computing Book Profit under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” 3 3. Facts in brief are: The appellant/company was incorporated on 3.2.1992 with an object to commence business

M/S. KARNATAKA INSTRADE CORPORATION LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

business loss of Rs.2,32,77,931/-. In Schedule-12 attached to the balance sheet filed along with the return, the assessee had declared other income of Rs.34,68,126/- which consists of interest income of Rs.66,482/- and balances written back amounting to Rs.34,01,644/-. In Schedule-13 which was titled as “Notes to the accounts

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.WINTAC LTD.,

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

Income Tax Act, 1961, under which, the goodwill amount is taxable.” The technical knowhow is an intangible asset, liable to be taxed under the head ‘Capital Gain’. The order passed by the Appellate Tribunal holding that the consideration of Rs.25.00 crores received is also for not carrying out certain activities pertaining to the business