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

13. Thus, Section 55[1] and 55[2] of the Act were amended in order to bring extinguishment of such a right to manufacture etc., within the ambit of the capital gains tax. It has been clarified that the cost of acquisition and cost of improvement to be determined in the same manner as for the goodwill. Goodwill is neither

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

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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

10,22,946/- and Rs.99,00,000/- shown by the assessee was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the shares of the company has been sold for lesser value. 6. Further, Rs.25.00 crores received by the assessee from M/s. Recon Health Care Limited towards the transfer of technical knowhow is claimed as capital receipt. However, the Assessing

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

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

Section 10(38) of the Act. Therefore, they recorded a finding that it is a case of colourable device to evade payment of taxation on short-term capital gains. Therefore, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax. It is against the said order, the assessee is in appeal. 13

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS SHAKUNTALA DEVI

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

10 reinvested by her for purchase of another residential property namely, a flat at Mumbai itself for a total consideration of Rs.3,25,00,000/- as per Memorandum of Understanding entered on 08.09.2003. It is also not in dispute that assessee had been paid a sum of Rs.2,40,00,000/- as advance between 12.04.2003 to 24.09.2003 as against

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

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

10 - acquisition of the asset and the cost of any improvement thereto. Special provision for full value of consideration in certain cases is dealt by Section 50C which reads as under: “Special provision for full value of consideration in certain cases. 50C. (1) Where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee

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’. Section 45[1] of the Act reads as under: “45. Capital Gains: (1) Any profits

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

10. Per contra, learned Counsel for the assessee supporting the impugned order contended that ‘the assessment order was issued under 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

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. 45. (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

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

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

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 was dealt with by the Supreme Court in 'CIT VS. COCANADA RADHASWAMI BANK LTD', 57 ITR 306 (SC). It is also pointed out that Supreme Court dealt with Section

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

gain amount of Rs.51,71,819.20/- to capital reserve account instead of crediting to profit and loss account. Thus, it is argued that the books of accounts maintained by the assessee is not as per the standard of accounting to be maintained in accordance with the Companies Act as disclosed in the Auditor’s report. In view of not maintaining

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

13,45,711/- and income from other sources at Rs.3,85,142/-. The assessee ITA.No.456/2017 - 3 - acquired the property under the Will dated 24.08.1994 executed by her husband who died on 22.02.2006. Subsequently, the assessee obtained probate from the City Civil Judge, Bangalore, under the order dated 30.10.2006. The husband of the assessee had acquired the property prior

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 shall be dealt with in accordance with the following provisions of this section, that is to say, (a) if the cost of the [specified securities] is not less than