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

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

23 on capital gains. Thereafter the decision of the Supreme Court in Express Newspapers was considered in CIT vs. CHUGANDAS AND CO and COCANADA RADHASWAMI BANK LTD. subsequently. In Express Newspapers supra, the Supreme Court dealt with the issue whether the capital gains can be taxed in the hands of the successor company and the issue whether the character

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

10 percent. 16. In light of the amendment to section 115AC of the Act, clause (x) of Section 47 was amended simultaneously to include "bonds" to address the taxability 11 arising from the conversion into equity shares of the issuing company. Section 47 of the Act, specifies the cases in which transfer of a capital asset is not assessable

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

Appeal is allowed

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

10. Shri. Shankar submitted that in this case, both the conditions mentioned above, are not fulfilled. Therefore, invocation of Section 45(4) of the Act, is not sustainable in law. 11. Shri. Sanmathi, submitted that the plot was admittedly reflecting in the Firm's books. Further construction was also made by the Firm. It was transferred

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M.R.KODANDARAM

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

10(E) [No. 9447 (F.NO.164/3/87-ITA-I)] dated 06.01.1994 issued by the Central Government submitted that agricultural lands, which fall within a distance of 8 kms from Municipal Limits in all directions from Bengaluru only, would fall within the definition of 'Capital Asset'. 15. The Assessing Officer in para 4.3.3 of his order has recorded that assessees had filed a Certificate

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M.R.PATTABHIRAM

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

10(E) [No. 9447 (F.NO.164/3/87-ITA-I)] dated 06.01.1994 issued by the Central Government submitted that agricultural lands, which fall within a distance of 8 kms from Municipal Limits in all directions from Bengaluru only, would fall within the definition of 'Capital Asset'. 15. The Assessing Officer in para 4.3.3 of his order has recorded that assessees had filed a Certificate

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M.R.PADMAVATHY TRUST

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

10(E) [No. 9447 (F.NO.164/3/87-ITA-I)] dated 06.01.1994 issued by the Central Government submitted that agricultural lands, which fall within a distance of 8 kms from Municipal Limits in all directions from Bengaluru only, would fall within the definition of 'Capital Asset'. 15. The Assessing Officer in para 4.3.3 of his order has recorded that assessees had filed a Certificate

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SHRI. M.R. SEETHARAM

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

10(E) [No. 9447 (F.NO.164/3/87-ITA-I)] dated 06.01.1994 issued by the Central Government submitted that agricultural lands, which fall within a distance of 8 kms from Municipal Limits in all directions from Bengaluru only, would fall within the definition of 'Capital Asset'. 15. The Assessing Officer in para 4.3.3 of his order has recorded that assessees had filed a Certificate

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M.R.PRABHAVATHY

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

10(E) [No. 9447 (F.NO.164/3/87-ITA-I)] dated 06.01.1994 issued by the Central Government submitted that agricultural lands, which fall within a distance of 8 kms from Municipal Limits in all directions from Bengaluru only, would fall within the definition of 'Capital Asset'. 15. The Assessing Officer in para 4.3.3 of his order has recorded that assessees had filed a Certificate

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M.R.ANANDARAM

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

10(E) [No. 9447 (F.NO.164/3/87-ITA-I)] dated 06.01.1994 issued by the Central Government submitted that agricultural lands, which fall within a distance of 8 kms from Municipal Limits in all directions from Bengaluru only, would fall within the definition of 'Capital Asset'. 15. The Assessing Officer in para 4.3.3 of his order has recorded that assessees had filed a Certificate

SRI B V S MURTHY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

23 SOT 565 (ITAT, MUMBAI), AUTHORITY OF ADVANCE RULINGS DECISION REPORTED IN 235 ITR 565, SUMIT BHATTACHARYA VS. ACIT 112 ITD 1 (ITAT MUMBAI SPECIAL BENCH) have no application to the facts of the case. It is further submitted that under Section 4(1)(ii) of the Companies Act, a company shall be subsidiary company of a holding company

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

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

capital gains. Notices under Section 143(2) / 142(1) of the Act were issued to the Assessee an order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 28.02.2005 disallowing an amount of Rs.192,53,21,426/- on reversal of interest pertaining to earlier years as deduction out of current years income and added back to interest on zero

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. M/S JEANS KNIT PVT LTD

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

capital gain earned. It is urged that since, the tribunal has failed to determine the core issue with regard to colorable devise adopted by the 15 assessee, to evade tax, therefore, the matter be remitted to the tribunal for decision afresh in accordance with law. In support of aforesaid submissions, the reliance is placed on decision of Supreme Court

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

Appeal is allowed

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

gains tax. Adverting to Explanation 2(a) of Section 263 of the Act, he contended that jurisdiction under Section 263 could be invoked only in such cases where the order is passed without making inquiries or verification. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd.1, CIT and another Vs. M/s. Cyber Park Development

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

capital gains earned thereon had not been declared for tax. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- was brought to tax. 15. Further at paragraph 8 of the order relating to bogus transportation expenses claimed for the assessment years 2009- 10 and 2010-11, the assessing officer has brought on record that the appellant has claimed transportation expenses

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of 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 of business or profession. Explanation. - For the removal of doubts

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S URBAN LADDER HOME DECOR SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: V KAMESWAR RAO,S RACHAIAH

gains derived from the alienation of any such right or property which are contingent on the productivity, use, or disposition thereof ; and (b) payments of any kind received as consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any industrial, commercial, or scientific equipment, other than payments derived by an enterprise described in paragraph 1 of Article 8 (Shipping

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

23 13. Section 115JB(5) of the Act reads as under: “(5) Save as otherwise provided in this section, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to every assessee being a company, mentioned in this Section.” Thus, by virtue of sub-Section (5) of Section 115JB, the application of other provisions of the Act are open, except if specifically

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-1 vs. M/S RASHTREEYA SIKSHANA SAMITHI TRUST

In the result grounds 3 to 5 of assessee

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

23,55,000/- as capitation fee in the guise of voluntary contribution. - 7 - ITA No. 554/2018 10. Shri Huilgol pointed out from para 18 of the impugned order that the assessee had filed an affidavit before the ITAT stating that no action under the KEI (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, was initiated against the assessee. The ITAT has recorded that