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 COMMR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S DYNAMIC ENTERPRISE

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: This Bench.

5. As per the Assessing Officer there is transfer of property from old firm to the new firm on 01.04.1994. Hence, it is a transfer within the meaning of Section 2(47) of the I.T.Act. Accordingly, notice under Section 148 was issued on 27.03.2002. In reply to the said notice, the assessee-firm contended that it has paid the amount

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

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

5. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal in allowing the appeal on certain issues, the Revenue has preferred this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the Assessing Officer has held that goodwill and technical know-how are one and the same whereas the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] has held that no evidence was produced

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 PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT SAROJINI M KUSHE

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

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

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

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,ASHOK S.KINAGI

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 COMMISSIONER OF vs. THE KARNATAKA STATE

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

5 per cent. The question which arose before the court for determination was: whether depreciation could be denied to the assessee, as expenditure on acquisition of the assets had been treated as application of income in the year of acquisition? It was held by the Bombay High Court that section 11 of the Income-tax Act makes provision in respect

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LATE KHOOBCHAND M MAKHIJA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

5. The undisputed facts in this case are that the assessee has sold the house under a registered sale deed dated 7.3.1996 for a consideration of Rs.3,73,00,550/-. The indexed cost of that old house as claimed and accepted by the authorities below is Rs.88,40,867/-. Therefore, the capital gain is Rs.2,84,59,683/-. The assessee

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

5. Aggrieved by the said order of the assessing authority, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appellate authority confirmed the assessment made but for - 7 - statistical purpose the appeal was treated as dismissed, since despite the acceptance of one of the pleadings raised, the end result is the confirmation of the assessment order

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS SHAKUNTALA DEVI

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

5. Assessee pursued her grievance before ITAT in ITA No.1170(BNG)/2008. Tribunal after considering the rival contentions held that assessee was entitled to deduction since for the purposes of Section 54 of the Act the date of purchase was to be taken as the basis namely, entering into a agreement for purchasing the new property. It also came

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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

11 in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS v/s BEST AND CO. (PRIVATE) LTD., has held as under: “If the compensation paid was in respect of two distinct matters, one taking the character of a capital receipt and the other of a revenue receipt, we do not see any principle which prevents the apportionment of the income between

M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

Section 55(2) of the Act during the relevant assessment year. The Assessee had only a limited licence to manufacture the six items as a licence holder in view of the Assignment Deed. The agreement entered into between the parties, prima facie, discloses that what is transferred by the Assessee to M/s. Sharp Corporation, is goodwill of the business

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

5. Learned counsel Sri.S P Bhat appearing along with Sri C Basavaiah for the appellant submitted that the authorities under the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for brevity) exceeded the jurisdiction in rescrutinising book profit, declared by the assessee and approved by the Registrar of Companies. 6 The Assessing Officer has no power to disturb

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

5. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing claim of assessee under section 54F of the Act by following the decision of this Hon’ble Court in case of CIT V/s Sambandam Udaykumar even when the assessee has not satisfied all the conditions prescribed under

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

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

5. The condition regarding continuity of the same business for the allowability of loss to an assessee under Section 72 of the Act is proposed to be dispensed with. (xxi) Section 72 of the Income Tax Act relating to carry forward and set off of business loss has been amended deleting the proviso to clause (i) of Sub Section

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SUBEX LTD

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

5 of Section 11 deals with the investment in bonds of financial corporation, State Government or Central Government. No doubt, specific provision is made in respect of investment in these particular kinds of bonds, however, that would not mean that when we deal with the investment in „debentures‟, which also clarifies for exemption, we have to give restrictive meaning