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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

capital asset or intangible asset or share or shares not charged under section 45 by virtue of conditions laid down in the said proviso shall be deemed to be the profits and gains chargeable to tax of the successor limited liability partnership or the shareholder of the predecessor company, as the case may be, for the previous year in which

KIDS CLINIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT

capital asset or intangible asset or share or shares not charged under section 45 by virtue of conditions laid down in the said proviso shall be deemed to be the profits and gains chargeable to tax of the successor limited liability partnership or the shareholder of the predecessor company, as the case may be, for the previous year in which

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

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

11. The judicial pronouncement on the aspect of slump sale would indicate that the said slump sale would not be taxable neither as business income under Section 41[2] nor under Section 45 of the Act. In the case B.C.Srinivasa Setty Supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the charging section and computation section are integrated code

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 vs. THE KARNATAKA STATE

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),S.G.PANDIT

section 11(1) in its commercial sense. The relevant portion of the Circular No.5XX-6 of 1968, dated 19-6-1968 (See Taxmann’s Direct Taxes Circulars, Vol. 1, 1980 edn. P.85) reads: “Where the trust derives income from house property, interest on securities, capital gains

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

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

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,ASHOK S.KINAGI

11. Section 45 of the Act reads thus: “Capital gains. 45. (1) Any profits or gains arising from the transfer

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

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

Section 53 of the TP Act in the context of capital gains under the Income Tax Act, it has been held thus: “11

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS SHAKUNTALA DEVI

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place 11 purchased, or has within a period of three years after that date constructed, a residential house, then, instead of the capital gain

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

Section 143(3) of - 11 - the Act. In the returns categorically it is mentioned that the assets and the liabilities of the firm were taken over by the assessee as a going concern, after the other partners retired and no capital gains

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

11. Section 45 of the Act is the charging section for ‘capital gains’. Section 45[1] of the Act reads

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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

Section 52 which earlier provided for adopting the consideration for transfer in case of understatement etc has been omitted by Finance Act, 1987 w.e.f. 1.4.1988. Thus, unless and until it can be proved, that the assessee received something 32 more than the apparent consideration, the Assessing Officer cannot compute the capital gain artificially by substituting fair market value in place

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

capital gains should be included in the profit and loss account for the purpose of computing book profit. 9. It is also submitted that the Judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Apollo Tyres (supra), and HCL Comnet Systems (supra), clarifies that the Assessing Officer does not have the jurisdiction to go behind the net profit shown

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

capital gain the same proportion as the cost of the new asset bears to the net consideration shall not be charged under section 45 of the Act. ITA.No.456/2017 - 11

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 Tax Act, 1922 and not Section 24(2) of the Act, which is akin to Section 72 of the Act. It is further submitted that the aforesaid decision

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. KRUPANIDHI EDUCATION

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

gains of business shall be computed in accordance with section 30 to section 43C, That, section 32(1) of the Act provides for depreciation in respect of building, plant and machinery owned by the assessee and used for the business purposes. It further provides for deduction subject to section 34. In that matter also, a similar argument

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head ‘Profit and gains of business or profession’. Applying the same analogy if, application of income is allowed under Section 11

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head ‘Profit and gains of business or profession’. Applying the same analogy if, application of income is allowed under Section 11