KIDS CLINIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT

gains tax on the Partnership Firm vide Assessment Order annexure ‘B’ dated 30.03.2005 under Section 143(3) of the Act read with Section 147 of the Act for Assessment Year 2000-01 and tax liability on the capital

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

capital 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

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

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

143[3] read with Section 254 of the Act holding that the consideration received by the assessee towards the sale of technical know-how was capital in nature as goodwill liable to be taxed under Section 45 of the Act as capital receipt at the value given by the purchaser in its financials. The Assessing Authority further held that

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. LATE KHOOBCHAND M MAKHIJA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

capital gain account as claimed by them. 2. The assessee filed a return of income for the assessment year 1996-97 on 23.7.1996 declaring a total income of Rs.3,46,500/-. The same was processed under Section 143

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

capital gains is payable. 2. Assessee filed its return of loss of Rs.6,83,400/- on 28.12.1992. After considering assessment under Section 143

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

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

capital gains'. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act on 30.01.2004 and a refund of Rs.4

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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

143(2) was issued on 25-10-2002. The authorized representative of the assessee appeared on behalf of the assessee. On examination of income tax returns and other details furnished by the assessee- Company, it was noticed that the assessee-company 4 entered into an agreement of sale of two Units i.e. Unit at Jigani and Bannerghatta Unit

P ARVIND MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

capital gain offered by the assessee, Rs.1,50,00,000/- after claiming the applicable exemptions against the receipt of consideration of Rs.4,00,00,000/- in respect of transfer of part of the rights in the brand name “MTR”. 3. The said return of income was selected for scrutiny and order dated 31.12.2010 under Section 143

P VIKRAM MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

capital gain offered by the assessee, Rs.1,50,00,000/- after claiming the applicable exemptions against the receipt of consideration of Rs.4,00,00,000/- in respect of transfer of part of the rights in the brand name “MTR”. 3. The said return of income was selected for scrutiny and order dated 31.12.2010 under Section 143

GOPAL S. PANDIT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

143(3) of the Act for the block period of 2005-06 to 2009-10 in pursuance of search carried out at the residential premises of the Assessee at Alangar, Moodabidri on 13.02.2009. The said Order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax with prior approval of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range, Panaji, vide letter

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

capital gains and other sources. For the assessment year 2004-05, he 3 filed his Income Tax return on 16.12.2004 declaring an income of Rs.4,82,330/- and agriculture income of Rs.1,62,470/-. Such return was first processed under section 143

LAHAR SINGH SIROYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

capital gains as defined in Section 2(42A) read with Section 2(29A) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 4 The returns filed by the assessee was processed under Section 143

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. VIKRAM REDDY

In the result, the fifth substantial question of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

capital gains have been returned and tax for Assessment Year 2006- 07 under Section45(3) of the Act and accepted in a proceeding under Section 143

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. INTEL CAPITAL (CAYMAN) CORPORATION

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

capital gain as it is less than 12 months only. 2. Facts leading to filing of the appeal briefly stated are that assessee is a non-resident company. The company filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2008-09 by declaring a total income of `49,95,03,232/-. In the assessment proceedings under Section 143

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

143(2), The Tribunal vide said order also knocked down the assessment proceedings completed under Section 144 read with Section 153D on similar ground that no satisfaction note was recorded by the assessing officer of the searched persons which is factually not applicable to the proceedings for the year under consideration. 4. Being aggrieved with the decision of the Tribunal

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHAITANYA PROPERTIES PVT LTD.,

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

capital gain that has to be brought to tax which in his opinion has escaped assessment. 14. On the facts as narrated above and on the basis of provisions of section 147 as well as proviso to section 147 of the Act, the ld. counsel for the assessee contended as follows:- a) Initiation of reassessment proceedings

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) vs. M/S POST & BSNL EMPLOYEES

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

capital gain that has to be brought to tax which in his opinion has escaped assessment. 14. On the facts as narrated above and on the basis of provisions of section 147 as well as proviso to section 147 of the Act, the ld. counsel for the assessee contended as follows:- a) Initiation of reassessment proceedings