KIDS CLINIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT

8. The Assessee firm preferred the second appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which held that not the partnership firm, but, the successor company M/s Prakash Electric Company Private Limited would be liable to pay such capital gains tax by virtue of Section 47A(3) of the Act inserted by Finance Date of Order: 23-07-2018. ITA No.884/2007

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: This Bench.

8. The learned counsel for the revenue contended that five partners brought money into the firm as their capital contribution and the erstwhile partners received the money and relinquished their interest in the capital asset in favour of the incoming partners, and accordingly it amounts to transfer of the capital asset, which results in capital gain as such they

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

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

8. Learned counsel submitted that the assessing officer has failed to comply with the directions of the Tribunal. No finding has been given either by the Assessing Authority or the Appellate Authority as to whether the transaction in question falls within the ambit of Section 28[iv] of the Act. It was further submitted that charging interest under Section

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

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 INCOME TAX vs. MRS SHAKUNTALA DEVI

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

8 committed an error in not considering the fact that entire sale consideration had not been paid by the assessee for purchase of new property and what had been invested by her is only a portion of total sale consideration and as such, assessee would not be entitled to the benefit of Section 54 of the Act. He would also

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

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

8 - provided in sections 54, 54B, 54D, 54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54H, be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place.” Section 48 of the Act reads thus: “Mode of computation. 48. The income chargeable under the head "Capital

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

8. As the said question of law arises for consideration but not framed at the time of admission, the said request of the revenue was granted. 9. Learned Counsel for the revenue assailing the impugned order of the Tribunal contended that though the assessee filed return and in the said return in the note column, he has mentioned about

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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

gain and not revenue receipt. Accordingly, allowed the appeal in part by its order dated 13-12-2004. The assessee being aggrieved by the order passed by the First Appellate Authority preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in ITA No.81/Bang/2005. Further, the Revenue also preferred an appeal in ITA No.292/Bang/2005 before the Income 8

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

8. On the other hand, Sri. E.R. Indra Kumar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri. E.I. Sanmathi appearing for the Revenue contended that the assessee has not followed standard accounting system in maintaining the books of accounts as per the Companies Act. Clause 3[XII](b) of Part II of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, contemplates that profit

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

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

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,ASHOK S.KINAGI

8 - that the guidance value has to be adopted for computing the capital gain when the terms and conditions of the agreement specify the value of consideration. Referring to Section 48 of the Act, it was argued that “full value of consideration” has to be interpreted with reference to cost of construction. Section 50C was also referred

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

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

capital gains. It is also argued that the business loss claimed to be set off by the assessee, was carried 12 forward business loss of the earlier years and the same can be set off only in terms of Section 72 of the Act, which permits only set off of business loss against the profits and gains of business

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

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

8. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that, even though BEIL, BFSL and Bhoruka Steels Limited are all controlled by 10 the same interest group of Agarwal family as common shareholders which is very prominent in the entire course of transaction involved in the present appeal. They had entered into

LAHAR SINGH SIROYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

gains, as had been claimed by him. 9. In the case of Sanjeev lal (supra), the Apex Court was considering a case where an agreement to sell his property was entered into by the assessee therein on 8 27.12.2002 for a consideration of Rs.1.32 crores, out of which only Rs.15.00 lakhs had been paid to the assessee as earnest money

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT PADMAVATHY

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

capital gains arising from the transfer of a residential house are exempt from Income Tax subject to reinvestment in acquiring a residential house within two years. The records disclose that the joint development agreement was entered into between the parties in the year 1994, the property was handed over 8 to the Developer pursuant to the agreement and the construction

P VIKRAM MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

sections. The assessee vide agreement dated 05/02/2007, received Rs.4,00,00,000/-, regarding modification of her right over the trade name MTR. The income was returned under the head capital gains and the same has been accepted as such in the proceedings u/s 143[3] of the Income tax Act, 1961. The audit pointed out that the same