THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. ELECTRONICS AND CONTROLS

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,E.S.INDIRESH

Capital gains" and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub-section (1) of section

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 of insurance, including any such business carried on by a mutual insurance company or by a co-operative society, shall be computed in accordance with the rules contained in the First Schedule.” 12. First Schedule

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 of insurance, including any such business carried on by a mutual insurance company or by a co-operative society, shall be computed in accordance with the rules contained in the First Schedule.” 12. First Schedule

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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

carry forward of loss and depreciation and allow the same from the income. However, the First Appellate Authority rejected the prayer insofar as Rs.34,68,126/- and declared as income from other sources. No relief has been granted insofar as the royalty is concerned. The First Appellate Authority was of the view that the assessee has shown the capital gain

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

carry forward and set-off of business losses. In the present case, though there may have been change in the shareholding in the assessment year 2002-03, yet, there was no change of control of the Company, as the control remained with the ABL as the voting power of ABL, along with its subsidiary Company APIL, remained

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

carry forward and set-off of business losses. In the present case, though there may have been change in the shareholding in the assessment year 2002-03, yet, there was no change of control of the Company, as the control remained with the ABL as the voting power of ABL, along with its subsidiary Company APIL, remained

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

carry forward and set-off of business losses. In the present case, though there may have been change in the shareholding in the assessment year 2002-03, yet, there was no change of control of the Company, as the control remained with the ABL as the voting power of ABL, along with its subsidiary Company APIL, remained

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

carry forward and set-off of business losses. In the present case, though there may have been change in the shareholding in the assessment year 2002-03, yet, there was no change of control of the Company, as the control remained with the ABL as the voting power of ABL, along with its subsidiary Company APIL, remained

M/S. THE KOLAR & CHICKBALLAPUR vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Capital gains” and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub-section (1) of section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MC DOWELL AND CO LTD

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

gains as per the provisions of the Act. Therefore the appeal was allowed and the Assessing Authority was directed to treat the capital loss arising out of the surrender of the industrial land of Rs.2,31,34,120-00 to be carried forward

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. KUMERGODE INVESTMENTS LTD

Appeal is Dismissed

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,N.KUMAR

loss which is brought forward from the assessment year 1997-98 to the extent of Rs.2,17,778/-. The assessee Company had not considered this while calculating the Long Term Capital Gains for the assessment year 2003-04. The assessee Company admitted the said fact. Therefore the assessee-Company’s claim of Rs.30,53,944/- was reduced to Rs.26

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. VIKRAM REDDY

In the result, the fifth substantial question of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

forwarded on the same date i.e., 24.03.2006 to the company secretary of NCCPL with signature of the partners showing different status in which they were partners including their dual capacity. All the 13 partners delivered share transfer forms transferring the shares so brought in as capital in favour of Sri.Madhusudhan Reddy on 24.03.2006 and name of Sri.Madhusudhan Reddy was entered

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S CHALASSANI EDUCATION TRUST

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

capital over and above the income so as to claim excess application /deficit/loss to be carried forward to subsequent assessment years even in the case of excess application by virtue of borrowed/funds/corpus fund donations set apart of earlier years, the income of the assessee cannot be reverted to loss but at best it can be made nil?” 3. This Court

M/S KARLE INTERNATIOAL PRIVATE LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order of the income tax appellate tribunal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

carried forward or set off where such loss relates to any of the relevant assessment years ending before the 1st day of April 2001. Section 70(1) Save as otherwise provided in this act, where the net result for any assessment year in respect of any source falling under any 12 head of income, other than “Capital gains

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

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

loss of Rs.1,05,77,033/- and business 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 income’ and ultimately based on the same, concluded the assessment proceedings

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S. BAGMANE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

loss of Rs.1,05,77,033/- and business 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 income’ and ultimately based on the same, concluded the assessment proceedings

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. MEDICAL RELIEF SOCIETY OF SOUTH KANARA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

carrying forward of the losses for being set off against the income of the charitable trust for the present Assessment Year, the controversy is covered by the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) and another Vs. Ohio University Christ College rendered on 17.07.2018 in ITA.No.312/2016 and ITA No.313/2016, in which this Court held as under

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

carry forward the long-term capital loss of Rs.1,24,03,271/-. Consequently, he also set aside the order passed by the Assessing Authority insofar as the interest is concerned. Aggrieved by this order, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has dealt with the respective issues as contended