SRI. P S SESHADRI. vs. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, this petition is allowed in part

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice Ram Mohan Reddy

capital gains band, being the limit set out in the said notifications. 11. It is in this backdrop of facts that petitioner claims to have not paid the tax of Rs.29,09,800/- and W.P.42424/12 18 did so only on 25.09.2007 Annexure – K after the amendment to explanation (b) to subsection 3 to section 54EC of the Act by Finance

THE COMMR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S DYNAMIC ENTERPRISE

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: This Bench.

Section 45(4) of the Act, which is not the case on hand. 10. It is in this background we have to notice the conflicting judgments of this Court, which resulted in this reference and resolve the conflict. CONFLICTING JUDGMENTS 11. Before the Division Bench reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner

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

3. The Tribunal after considering the rival contentions has upheld the order passed by the Appellate Authority. It is against the said order, the Revenue is in appeal. 4. The substantial questions of law, which arise for consideration in these appeals, are as under: 1. Whether the Tribunal committed an error in holding that the assessee would be entitled

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

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

3(XII)(b) & [c] has to be disclosed in the profit and loss account which is mandatory requirement, as set out in these provisions under Schedule VI of the Companies Act, having not been followed, the Income Tax Authorities are justified in rescrutinizing the book profit as per Sub-section (2) of Section 115JB of the Act. It is further

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

13 - reassessment, if income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment by reason of their failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under Section 139 or in response to a notice issued under Section 142(1) or Section 148 of the Act or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment for that assessment

M/S. THE KOLAR & CHICKBALLAPUR vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Capital gains” and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub-section (1) of section 72, or sub-section (2) of section 73, or sub-section (2) of section 73A or sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74, or sub- section (3) of section 74A, he may furnish, within the time

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS SHAKUNTALA DEVI

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

Capital Gain Account Scheme. Thus, if the above conditions are satisfied, assessee is entitled to claim benefit of the provision of Section 54. 13. Facts on hand would disclose that assessee had owned a flat at Mumbai and sold the same on 04.02.2003 for a total consideration of ` 1,70,00,000/-. Subsequent to such sale she entered into

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

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

3) No loss other than the loss referred to in the proviso to subsection (1) of this section shall be carried for- ward under this 20 section for more than eight assessment years immediately succeeding the assessment year for which the loss was first computed. 74. Losses under the head" Capital gains" (1) Where in respect of any assessment year

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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

3. The assessee filed return of income on 31-10-2001 declaring a total loss of Rs.3,68,30,330/-. But determined the tax payable under Section 115JB at Rs.38,26,607/-. 4. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) was issued on 25-10-2002. The authorized representative of the assessee appeared on behalf

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

13 3. PAYMENTS a) SC agrees to remit from Japan to AEEI Rs.35.000,000 (Rupees Thirty five Million) in an account to the designated by AEEI for the assignment of registered trademarks, pending trademark and copyright applications, common law rights and goodwill and copyrights as contemplated in Article 2(i),(ii) and (iii) and for the covenant and undertaking from

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

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

3. The respondent – assessee is an individual deriving managerial remuneration from M/s PVS Beedies (P) Ltd. The assessee filed return of income for the assessment year under consideration declaring the total income of Rs.28,39,420/- and subsequently filed revised return of income declaring the income of Rs.1,02,10,700/- including an additional income of Rs.73

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

SRI B V ACHARYA S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA ACHARYA vs. SRI N VENKATESHAIAH

Bench: V.JAGANNATHAN

capitation fee issue is concerned, the 18 submission made is that the writ petition filed in this regard by the students came to be dismissed by this court. Therefore, none of the offences alleged in the complaint can be said to have been, even remotely, made out against the petitioner and thus, it is clear that the entire complaint

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

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,ASHOK S.KINAGI

3. The assessing officer completed the assessment by computing the long term capital gains, quantifying the sale consideration as the cost of construction of 26% of constructed area and allotted to the assessee as per the JDA dated 11.5.2009 treating the cost of construction as the full value of consideration. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner

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

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

gains of business or profession. 43. In sections 28 to 41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires— (1) "actual cost" means xxx section 47. (2) "paid" means actually xxx profession. (3) "plant" includes xxx fittings. (4)[(i) "scientific research" means any activities for the extension of knowledge in the fields of natural or applied science including agriculture

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 gains for sale of property at Rs.10,13,45,711/- 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