KIDS CLINIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT

19. Therefore, the only point raised before us is about the purported non-compliance with the condition stipulated in clause (b) of Clause (xiii) of Section 47 and effect thereof on the capital gains

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: This Bench.

gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset by way of distribution of capital assets on the dissolution of a firm or other association of persons or body of individuals (not being a company or a co-operative society) or otherwise, shall be chargeable to tax as the income of the firm, association or body, of the previous year

ANTONY PARAKAL KURIAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

gain on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged in case of investment for residential use. The proviso (a)(i) to Section 54F(1) of the Act makes a distinction from Section 54, inasmuch as the language employed, more particularly, the phrase “owns”. 19

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

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

19 - the said assets was indeterminable. The whole exercise was done by the Revenue merely for the reason that the purchaser in his books of accounts has shown the same as the technical know-how. If such technical know-how could not attract capital gains, in view of B.C.Srinivasa Setty supra, the Revenue has made an attempt to treat

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LATE KHOOBCHAND M MAKHIJA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

19,16,389/- is the cost of investment in respect of purchase of one residential house and therefore, the long term capital gain is Rs.1,87,71,959/- which amount, according to him, was not deposited before the due date. Therefore, he levied tax on the said amount. They also denied the benefit under Section

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

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

19 - the reasoning for inserting Section 50D of the Act is as under: “Capital gains are calculated on transfer of a capital

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS SHAKUNTALA DEVI

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

capital gains in construction of residential house would suffice to claim the benefit of Section 54 of the Act. 15. Following the same and for the reasons aforestated, we are of the considered view that substantial question of law is to be answered in the affirmative i.e., in favour of assessee and against the revenue and accordingly, it is answered

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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

section 51 of the Act and should be excluded as revenue receipt while computing the total income. 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the stock pertaining to bulk drug unit and R & D should be taken as NIL as on 30.6.2000 when its realizable value as on 30.03.2000 was Rs.12.78 crores and the Assessing Officer had held

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ASSOCIATED ELECTRONIC AND ELCTRICAL

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

capital gains’ shall be computed as per the provisions of Section 48 of 19 the Act. In the present case

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

19 - sustained and it is set aside. The substantial question of law is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. What Constitutes “Transfer” 14. Section 47 of the Act, deals with transaction not recorded as transfer. Section 47 (II) of the Act, prior to its deletion, it provides: 1. Nothing contained in Section 45 shall apply

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

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,ASHOK S.KINAGI

Section 50D is also not applicable which has come into force with effect from 01.04.2013; thus, cost of construction would be the appropriate mode. However, we are not inclined to accept the arguments of the Revenue in entirety for the reason that the entire issue is revenue neutral. The Tribunal has categorically observed that “even otherwise, if any capital gains

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

capital gain in the profit and loss account. Section 211 of the Companies Act contemplates, form and contents of balance sheet and profit and loss account. Sub-sections 3(A),3(B) and 3(C) of Section 211 provides that every profit and loss account and balance sheet of the company shall comply with the accounting standards, where the profit

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

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Capital gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. 56. (1) Income of every kind which is not to be excluded from the total income under this Act shall be chargeable to income- tax under the head "Income from other sources", if it is not chargeable to income

P VIKRAM MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

Capital gain and the same has been accepted as such in the assessment proceedings. Last date for issue of notice u/s 148 is 31/03/2013. Last date for passing order u/s. 263 is 31/03/2013. Tax effect involved is Rs.1,01,97,000/- 5 a]. if remedial action is taken, details such as section and date of NA - 16 - order demand raised

P ARVIND MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

Capital gain and the same has been accepted as such in the assessment proceedings. Last date for issue of notice u/s 148 is 31/03/2013. Last date for passing order u/s. 263 is 31/03/2013. Tax effect involved is Rs.1,01,64,058/- 5 a]. if remedial action is taken, details such as section and date of NA - 16 - order demand raised

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

capital gains, and also disallowed 50% of expenses on transfer claimed by the assessee. Besides this, certain other disallowances were also made by the Assessing Officer. Challenging the same, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who granted certain relief, but confirmed the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act; the assessment

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

capital gain based on such sale of immovable property. The assessee is only a share holder in BFSL. It is BFSL who has purchased the immovable property under registered sale deeds. Therefore, assessee is not the owner of the immovable property. However, the assessee has transferred his shares for a valuable consideration of Rs.4,490/- per share. The income derived

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT PADMAVATHY

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

capital gain and income from other sources. The Assessing Officer selected the returns filed by the assessee for scrutiny. The assessee has claimed deduction under Section 54EA of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in respect of sum of Rs.41,13,000/- invested in specified securities out of total consideration received from the sale of flats