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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LATE KHOOBCHAND M MAKHIJA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

2) of the Act, the said amount was offered for taxation for the assessment year 1999-2000. 6. Now the question for consideration is, whether the assessee was entitled to the benefit of Section 54(1) of the Act in respect of both the residential houses and whether he was justified in offering the unutilized capital gain

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

2) Where at any time, before the expiry of a period of three years from the date of the transfer of a capital asset referred to in clause (xi) of section 47, any of the shares allotted to the transferor in exchange of a membership in a recognized stock exchange are transferred, the amount of profits and gains not charged

KIDS CLINIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT

2) Where at any time, before the expiry of a period of three years from the date of the transfer of a capital asset referred to in clause (xi) of section 47, any of the shares allotted to the transferor in exchange of a membership in a recognized stock exchange are transferred, the amount of profits and gains not charged

THE COMMISSIONER OF vs. THE KARNATAKA STATE

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

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

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

capital gains, and also disallowed 50% of expenses on transfer claimed by the assessee. Besides this, certain other disallowances were also made by the Assessing Officer. Challenging the same, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who granted certain relief, but confirmed the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act; the assessment

M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE UNION OF INDIA REPTD BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri W.P. No.26037/2005 C/W W.P.No.4464/2007 & W.P.No.27087/2005(It)

11 Supreme Court Cases page 417 (Nandkishore Ganesh Joshi v. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Kalyan & Dombivali & Ors.) and 2004 Volume 6 Supreme Court Cases page 59 (State of West Bengal v. Sadan K. Bormal & Anr.) in support of the contentions that, a legal fiction cannot be extended beyond the purpose for which it is created. He has contended that, Section

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

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 is payable as there was no transfer which comes within the purview of Section 2

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 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 as under: “45. Capital Gains: (1) Any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save as otherwise provided in sections 54, 54B, 54D, 54E, 54EA, 54EB

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

gains by invoking Section 45(2) of the Act. 3. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the ground that reopening of assessment is invalid since, no notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide order dated 26.11.2010 inter alia held that assessee

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

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,ASHOK S.KINAGI

2], Chennai [(2020) 115 taxmann.com 5 (SC)] while considering the provision of Section 53 of the TP Act in the context of capital gains under the Income Tax Act, it has been held thus: - 23 - “11

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

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

2], Chennai [(2020) 115 taxmann.com 5 (SC)] while considering the provision of Section 53 of the TP Act in the context of capital gains under the Income Tax Act, it has been held thus: “11

AZIM PREMJI TRUSTEE COMPANY PVT LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

capital gain arising from the sale of Wipro shares, the A.O. was made fully aware of the sale price of Wipro shares. In any event, the market price of Wipro shares was completely in the public realm as it is a very well known and widely traded shares. Further, during the course of the 5 scrutiny assessment, the A.O specifically

M/S FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 2(22)(e) of the Act and could be taxed as Dividends, in the hands of the Assessee Company. Date of Judgment :23-07-2018 I.T.A.No.512/2017 M/s. Fidelity Business Services India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, & Anr. 9/86 11. The learned Tribunal said that since this aspect of the matter was not examined

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS SHAKUNTALA DEVI

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

2), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, the capital gain arises from the transfer of a long-term capital asset, being buildings or lands appurtenant thereto, and being a residential house, the income of which is chargeable under the head “Income from house property” (hereafter in this section referred

ANTONY PARAKAL KURIAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

2. The assessee, a salaried person working in M/s IGUS India Private Limited, had filed a return of income showing the capital gains for the assessment year under consideration. CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE: 3. During the relevant assessment year, the assessee had sold the land of Angamaly, Kerala [original asset] to M/s. Fashion Jewellery vide sale deed dated

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

2) of section 64 at any time after the 31st day of December, 1969, the cost of acquisition of the asset shall be deemed to be the cost for which the previous owner of the property acquired it, as increased by ITA.No.456/2017 - 8 - the cost of any improvement of the assets incurred or borne by the previous owner