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

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

AZIM PREMJI TRUSTEE COMPANY PVT LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

143, but before the expiry of the time limit for making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation as specified in sub-section (2) of section 153, every such notice referred to in this clause shall be deemed to be a valid notice. Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that nothing contained in the first proviso

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S PRAKASH ELECTRIC COMPANY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

143(3) of the Act read with Section 147 of the Act for Assessment Year 2000-01 and tax liability on the capital gains of Rs.1,33,43,710/- to the extent of Rs.51,37,329/- and with interest under Sections 234A and 234B of the Act, a total demand of Rs.93,17,550/- was raised against the Assessee-firm

KIDS CLINIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT

143(3) of the Act read with Section 147 of the Act for Assessment Year 2000-01 and tax liability on the capital gains of Rs.1,33,43,710/- to the extent of Rs.51,37,329/- and with interest under Sections 234A and 234B of the Act, a total demand of Rs.93,17,550/- was raised against the Assessee-firm

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

143(1) of the Act and accepted on 2.3.2005. Thereafter, notice under Section 148 was issued on 17.1.2006 stating that the assessee had converted agricultural land into non- agricultural purposes, formed sites and sold the same during the relevant period, and while arriving at the capital gains, the assessee had considered the indexation up to the financial year

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

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the assessee is a limited company carrying on the business of manufacture of iron and steel. The assessee filed the return of income for the Assessment Year 2003-04 on 14.10.2003 and declared an income of Rs.98,27,270/- under the head 'income from capital gains'. The return

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

ANTONY PARAKAL KURIAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

2. The assessee, a salaried person working in M/s IGUS India Private Limited, had filed a return of income showing the capital gains for the assessment year under consideration. CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE: 3. During the relevant assessment year, the assessee had sold the land of Angamaly, Kerala [original asset] to M/s. Fashion Jewellery vide sale deed dated

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

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

M/S KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.I.ARUN

capital gains under Section 10(38) for the 7 determination of book profits under Section 115JB of the Act. 4. Learned Senior counsel for the assessee submitted that the following 3 issues arise for consideration in this appeal: i) Reduction of provision for bad and doubtful debts written back credited to profit and loss account for computation of book profit

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GALI JANARDHANA REDDY

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

section 45(2) of the Act. In the reasons recorded by the AO before issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the AO has come to the conclusion that by virtue of JDA dated 5.2.2005, there was a transfer of the capital asset giving rise to capital gains u/s. 45(2) of the Act. In this regard

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

section 45(2) of the Act. In the reasons recorded by the AO before issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the AO has come to the conclusion that by virtue of JDA dated 5.2.2005, there was a transfer of the capital asset giving rise to capital gains u/s. 45(2) of the Act. In this regard

CHITTHARANJAN A DASANNACHARYA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the assessee is a software engineer who was employed with Aerospace Systems Pvt. Ltd., a company registered in India between the period from 1995-1998. He was deputed to SiRF Technology Inc., U.S. in the year 1995 by Aerospace Systems Pvt. Ltd., India as an independent consultant

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

capitalized (for assessment years 2004-05 and 2006-07) - 13 - 7. That in respect of the assessment year 2004- 05, the order under Section 143(3) had been passed on 27/12/2006 and in that assessment order, all deductions were disallowed by the order passed under Section 153C, except one, which had already been disallowed. 8. The assessee filed an appeal