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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

long term capital gain of Rs.13,16,08,600/- and short term capital gain of Rs.77

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

Appeal is allowed;

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

capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house

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

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

gain on sale of technical know-how was capital receipt chargeable to tax under Section 45 of the Act. Learned counsel further argued that the Assessing officer has rightly charged - 6 - Rs.53.10 Crores as long term

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. INTEL CAPITAL (CAYMAN) CORPORATION

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Long-term capital gain realized from the transfer of FCBBs or shares to a resident would be liable

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SHAILENDRA BABU

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

Long Term Capital gains tax on sale of the STPL. 5. In the case of Smt. Poornima Shailendra

SMT Y MANJULA REDDY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Term Capital Gain of Rs.1,56,85,225/- was assessed by the assessee. In respect of the aforesaid capital gain, the assessee claimed exemption under Section 54F of the Act to the extent of Rs.1,56,33,870/- and offered balance of Long

SHRI SRINIVASAN CHANDIRA KUMAR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER

In the result, we do not find any merit in the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

long term capital gain on sale of shares of Rs.26,07,28,826/-. The sale of shares of Trident

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5 vs. SRI SHAILESH HARAN

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

long term capital gain as per which the assessee is the beneficiary of the bogus long term capital

M/S KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.I.ARUN

long term capital gains under Section 10(38) of the Act, under Section 115JB of the Act. The assessee

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI C RAMAIAH REDDY

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

long term capital gains of Rs.5,69,78,516/- made by the assessing officer? 3 (ii) Whether on the facts

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE

In the result, we find no merit in the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

long term 8 capital gain which are to be considered for the purpose of computing tax liability under

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE

In the result, we find no merit in the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

long term 8 capital gain which are to be considered for the purpose of computing tax liability under

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE

In the result, we find no merit in the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

long term 8 capital gain which are to be considered for the purpose of computing tax liability under

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

capital gains, it is stated as assessment of long term capital gains Rs.5,25,000/-, the Assessing

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. M/S VECTRA CONSULTING

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

long term capital gain of Rs.235.85 crores in the hands of the Company on selling of shares of M/s.Jupiter

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S C RAMAIAH REDDY

In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

long term capital gains and a sum of Rs.61,32,800/- as short term capital gains

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI BHARAT R GAJRIA

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

capital gains. It is significant to note that the said property was held by the assessee as long term

FABSUN ENGINEERING vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal is allowed

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

long term capital gains. The Assessing Officer rejected the benefit under Section 54G on the ground that Bangalore