KIDS CLINIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT

capital 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

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

capital gain arising from the sale of Wipro shares, the A.O. was made fully aware of the sale price of Wipro shares. In any event, the market price of Wipro shares was completely in the public realm as it is a very well known and widely traded shares. Further, during the course of the 5 scrutiny assessment, the A.O specifically

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

capital gains under Section 45 of the Act, came to surface as the relevant details were only known during the above queries. At the time of original assessment, company and the firm were assessed by two different officers. In the first assessment the - 6 - relevant details at the time of original assessment of the firm, the proviso to Section 147

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS SHAKUNTALA DEVI

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

147 and in response to the notice issued under Section 148, reply came to be filed by the assessee stating thereunder that original return filed is to be treated as return filed in response to the notice issued under Section 148. Accordingly, assessment proceedings came to be framed. 3. Assessing officer has noticed that assessee had sold a flat

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

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

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

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,ASHOK S.KINAGI

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 of Income Tax (Appeals), which came to be allowed considering the guidance

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

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 147 of the Act on 04.09.2006 and disallowed the set off of brought forward business loss and held that set off of brought forward loss against capital gain

THE SRI KANNIKAPARAMESWARI CO OP BANK LIMITED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

Capital Gain and not under income from business and consequently denied the exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, 1961 and consequently passed a perverse order on the fact and circumstances of the case.” 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant placing reliance on, (1) ALA Firm v. CIT, reported in (1991) 189 ITR 285; (2) Commissioner

P VIKRAM MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

gain towards the transaction of transfer of part of its rights in the capital assets of trademark. Reasons recorded by the learned Assessing Officer for the notice dated 03.03.2015 under Section 148 of the Act impugned herein, is verbatim similar to that of the reasons recorded in the first notice dated 03.03.2015 issued under Section

P ARVIND MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

gain towards the transaction of transfer of part of its rights in the capital assets of trademark. Reasons recorded by the learned Assessing Officer for the notice dated 03.03.2015 under Section 148 of the Act impugned herein, is verbatim similar to that of the reasons recorded in the first notice dated 03.03.2015 issued under Section

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

147 of the Act and by an order dated 31.12.2008 determined the taxable 4 income at Rs.12,10,51,209/- after making an addition of Rs.12,14,68,180/- as long term capital gains and a sum of Rs.61,32,800/- as short term capital gains by invoking Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GMR HOLDINGS PVT LTD.,

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

section 147 of the Act. 17. In the present case, another objection taken by the AO in the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment is that the assessee had not set off business loss against the capital Date of Judgment 31-07-2018 I.T.A.No.58/2012 Commissioner of Income-tax & Anr. vs. M/s. GMR Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 6/16 gains

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MPHASIS LIMITED

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

gain and the other deduction for short term capital loss while filing their returns under Section 139 of the Act. All was well up to September, 2015. The Department conducted search on all the petitioners herein under Section 132 of the Act. Section 132 of the Act reads as follows: “132. Search and seizure.—(1) [Where the [Principal Director General

SMT JOSHNA RAJENDRA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Accordingly, it stands dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

capital gains had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. -: 6 :- 7. Though Mr.Ashok Kulkarni, learned

SRI B V S MURTHY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

capital gains. This appeal is preferred by the assessee, which was admitted by a bench of this court vide order dated 12.11.2010 on following substantial questions of law: i) Whether in law, the reopening of assessment under Section 147

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S AMCO BATTERIES LTD.,

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

capital gain income, which exceeds more than One Lakh Rupees, arising on account of consideration received towards transfer of land, has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147

DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri Writ Petition No.11618 Of 2016 (T-It) Between:

Gains chargeable to tax under Section 45 of the Act are, denied to be income. The amounts received on issue of share capital including the premium is undoubtedly on capital account. Share premium have been made taxable by a legal fiction under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act and the same is enumerated as Income in Section