THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S PRAKASH ELECTRIC COMPANY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

10. The provision of Section 47A relevant for the present controversy are also quoted below for ready reference:66 [Withdrawal of exemption in certain cases. 47A. [(1) Where at any time before the expiry of a period of eight years from the date of the transfer of a capital asset referred to in clause (iv) or, as the case

KIDS CLINIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT

10. The provision of Section 47A relevant for the present controversy are also quoted below for ready reference:66 [Withdrawal of exemption in certain cases. 47A. [(1) Where at any time before the expiry of a period of eight years from the date of the transfer of a capital asset referred to in clause (iv) or, as the case

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

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

capital gains. The provisions of Section 56 read with Section 10[3] are quite apposite. Entire sale consideration not allocable

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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

gain arises out of sale of equity shares of RAL and agreed to sell the said shares at the rate of Rs.0.10 per share to the Managing Director of RAL and sustained the long term 28 capital loss of Rs.3,10,22,946/-. the share purchased worth Rs.1.00 crore was also sold to the RAL within few days, for Rs.1

ANTONY PARAKAL KURIAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

Capital gains amounting to Rs.2,23,47,434/- was claimed as an exemption under Section 54 of the Act and Rs.25 Lakhs is claimed as an exemption for making investment in REC bonds under Section 54EC of the Act. The contention of the appellant 6 was that out of the advance amount of Rs.50 lakhs received from M/s. Fashion Jewellery

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LATE KHOOBCHAND M MAKHIJA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

capital gain being charged to income-tax as income of the previous year in which transfer took place, the assessee would be entitled to the benefit conferred under Section 54(1) of the Act. As in this case, assessee has purchased two residential houses, he is entitled to the benefit only in respect of one residential house, which is higher

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS SHAKUNTALA DEVI

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

10. Facts on hand would clearly indicate that assessee had sold a flat at Mumbai for a total consideration of Rs.1,71,00,000/- on 04.02.2003 and thereby Long Term Capital Gains was arrived at Rs.1,44,68,032/-. In the return of income assessee claimed exemption under Section

M/S BHORUKA ENGINEERING INDS. LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

Section 10(38), is contrary to law? 10. The learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee assailing the impugned orders passed by the authorities as well as the Tribunal contended that, the authorities proceeded on the basis that the assessee has sold an immovable property and therefore the assessee is liable to 14 pay capital gain

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT SAROJINI M KUSHE

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

Section 48 would indicate that the income chargeable under the head capital gains shall be computed by deducting the following amounts from the full value of consideration received or accrued as a result of the transfer of the capital asset. [1] expenditure incurred wholly or exclusively in connection with such transfer [2] cost of - 10

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SHASTHA PHARMA LABORATORIES

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

capital gains is payable as there was no transfer which comes under the purview of Section 2(47) of the Act, but he did not disclose in the return the revaluation done immediately prior to the deed of retirement. The fact that the assessee had obtained a registered sale deed in his favour directly from the BDA was also

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

10. We have heard Sri. K.V. Aravind, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue as well as Sri. A. Shankar, learned Counsel appearing for the Assessee and perused the material on record. 11. Section 45 of the Act is the charging section for ‘capital gains

M/S NANDI STEELS LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

capital gains income was in fact business income. It is also pointed out that the subject matter in question in EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS supra was Section 26(2) of the Income 10

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

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,ASHOK S.KINAGI

10. We have carefully considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. Section 45 of the Act reads thus: “Capital gains

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

Section 115JB of the Act. It is further contended that the Judgment of Veekaylal 10 (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the case, as such the authorities are justified in following the said Judgment, that the capital gains

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS. VANAJA MATTHEN

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: This Court, Questioning The Order Dated 25.01.2017 In

10. A reading of the aforesaid provision makes it very clear that if a capital gain arises from the transfer of any long term capital asset, not being a residential house and the assessee has within the period of one year before or two years after the date on which transfer took place purchased or has within a period

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT PADMAVATHY

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

10,] specified by the Board in this behalf by notification in the Official Gazette (such assets hereafter in this section referred to as the [specified securities]), the capital gain