P VIKRAM MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘Act’ for short] relating to the assessment years 2008-09. 2. The petitioner filed the return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 declaring the total income of Rs.1,83,08,077/- which includes the income from the capital gain

P ARVIND MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘Act’ for short] relating to the assessment years 2008-09. 2. The petitioner filed the return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 declaring the total income of Rs.1,84,03,401/- which includes the income from the capital gain

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(1) of the Act and accepted on 2.3.2005. Thereafter, notice under Section 148

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

capital gains. They also contended that they have disclosed fully and truly all the material facts necessary for the purpose of the assessment for the relevant previous year. The assessment was duly completed under Section 143(3) of the Act and the order dated 11.11.1994, accepting the same should not have issued notice under Section 148

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS SHAKUNTALA DEVI

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

Section 148. Accordingly, assessment proceedings came to be framed. 3. Assessing officer has noticed that assessee had sold a flat at Mumbai on 04.02.2003 for a total consideration of `1,71,00,000/- and had worked out long-term capital gain

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(1)(a) of the Act and refund of Rs.12,859/- was issued. Subsequently, notice under Section 148

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.4,77,163/- was issued. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 148

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

Section 10 (38) of the Act. 6. The assessing authority proposed to bring to tax the gain arising on the sale of the shares as short term capital gain on sale of the immovable property by holding that the transaction was virtually for sale of the immovable property to DLFCDL and the sale of shares was only a devise

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

section 71(2) of the Act clearly stipulates that the loss must be set off against the income, if any, assessable for that assessment year under any head of income including the head ‘capital gains’, whether short term capital gain or long term capital gain. The said provision reads as under: “71 (2) Where in respect of any assessment year

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

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

section 148 is bad in law and consequently all further proceedings are - 5 - bad in law on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4) Without prejudice, whether the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that an amount of Rs.44,53,500/- is to be assessed as income under the head Capital Gain

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(1) of the Act but the Assessing Officer subsequently issued notice under Section 148

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

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. VIKRAM REDDY

In the result, the fifth substantial question of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2007-08. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 13.08.2013 on the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether

M/S GOKULDAS EXPORTS vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

capital gains though directed to be considered by this Court, the ITAT has not considered in second round of litigation. 11. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the records. 10 12. So far as the question whether notice under Section 148

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. M/S MINITECHS

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

148 and had also duly filed the revised computation of income. The AO’s view is that “when the rental income was already offered to tax, it was in the knowledge of the 6 assessee that the capital gains are also attracted on taking possession of the built up area”. As already stated, the issue was debatable and the belief

SHRI N G CHANDRA REDDY (HUF) vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

section 148 issued is bad in law and not in accordance with law and consequently the entire proceedings are unsustainable in law on the facts and circumstance of the case. 38. Whether the Tribunal erred in law in not holding that no capital gains

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

148 and subsequently, the assessment proceedings were concluded by passing an order of reassessment under Section 147 read with Section 144 by bringing to tax all the income which formed part of 6 total income under the original assessment order passed. However, it was noticed that though the assessment proceedings was initiated by issue of notice under Section