COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M.R.PADMAVATHY TRUST

Appeals are dismissed

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

Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act and therefore attract tax on the Capital gains. 7. Opposing the appeals, Shri

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M.R.PRABHAVATHY

Appeals are dismissed

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

Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act and therefore attract tax on the Capital gains. 7. Opposing the appeals, Shri

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M.R.ANANDARAM

Appeals are dismissed

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

Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act and therefore attract tax on the Capital gains. 7. Opposing the appeals, Shri

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SHRI. M.R. SEETHARAM

Appeals are dismissed

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

Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act and therefore attract tax on the Capital gains. 7. Opposing the appeals, Shri

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M.R.KODANDARAM

Appeals are dismissed

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

Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act and therefore attract tax on the Capital gains. 7. Opposing the appeals, Shri

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

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 14, 28, 41(2), 45(1), 56(1), 72 and 74(1) of the Act, which read as under: 14. Heads of income Save as otherwise provided by this Act, all income shall, for the purposes of charge of income- tax and computation of total income, be classified under the following heads of income:- A.- Salaries. B.-] C.- Income

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

14,68,180/- as long term capital gains and a sum of Rs.61,32,800/- as short term capital gains by invoking Section 45(2

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

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

14. In Seshasayee Steels [P.] Ltd., V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle VI[2], Chennai [(2020) 115 taxmann.com 5 (SC)] while considering the provision of Section 53 of the TP Act in the context of capital gains

M/S TELCO CONSTRUCTION CO.LTD vs. THE ASST COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

2(14), which provides that for removal of doubts it is hereby clarified that property includes and shall be deemed to have always included any rights in or in relation to an Indian company, including rights of management or control or any other rights whatsoever. The aforesaid explanation is inclusive and explains the 11 meaning of the property

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 2(47)(v) of the IT Act. Accordingly, capital gains were computed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7442-DB ITA No. 637 of 2016 3.3 Aggrieved thereby, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (for short, “CIT(A)”). By order dated 13.02.2015, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal insofar as it related

V.S. CHANDRASHEKAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the first substantial question of law is

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 2(47) of the Act. In this connection, reliance has been placed on decisions of the Supreme Court in 'SANJEEV LAL VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH', 365 ITR 389 and therefore, the consideration has rightly been subjected to capital gains. It is further 14

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

14. Further, at para No.7 of the order dated 25.08.2014 related to capital gains, it is stated as assessment of long term capital gains Rs.5,25,000/-, the Assessing Officer has brought on record that seized material marked as ‘RB/1’, found from the premises of Sri K.Raghavacharyulu was sale agreement dated 26.12.2005 for land at Sy.No.25A, Ganesh Nagar, measuring

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIT (A) vs. SHRI J KRISHNA PALEMAR

Appeal is allowed;

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

2-1-42/1. This might be adjacent to the Chilimbi property, which is shown in the Fixed Schedule of the Balance Sheet of the assessee. The assessee might have clubbed all the land in the properties, which is called as Chilimbi property in the Balance-sheet for the purpose of development of residential complex. But, it does not take

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

2(f) of the Scheme provides that the words and expressions not defined in the scheme, but defined in the Income Tax Act, 1961 or the Companies Act, 1956, or the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 or the Rules and Regulations 9 framed under These Acts, shall have the meaning respectively assigned to them, as the case

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. M/S JEANS KNIT PVT LTD

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

capital gain earned. It is urged that since, the tribunal has failed to determine the core issue with regard to colorable devise adopted by the 15 assessee, to evade tax, therefore, the matter be remitted to the tribunal for decision afresh in accordance with law. In support of aforesaid submissions, the reliance is placed on decision of Supreme Court

SHRI. SHANKARLAL GILADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

Bench: G.NARENDAR,M.NAGAPRASANNA

2)(a)(i) of the Act but would also be applicable to all banks/commercial banks, to which the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applies. 47. From this, the Punjab and Haryana High Court pointed out that this circular carves out a distinction between “stock-in-trade” and “investment” and provides that if the motive behind purchase and sale of shares

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

14,76,04,186 Less: Advance Tax 7,50,00,000 Balance Tax 7,26,04,186 Add: Interest u/s234A – 1,30,68,753 12 235B – 1,59,97,806 2,90,66,559 Total Tax 10,16,70,745 Less: 140A paid 2,00,00,000 Net Amount Payable 8,16,70,745 11.It is further contended

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S SYNDICATE BANK

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

capital gains. Notices under Section 143(2) / 142(1) of the Act were issued to the Assessee an order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 28.02.2005 disallowing an amount of Rs.192,53,21,426/- on reversal of interest pertaining to earlier years as deduction out of current years income and added back to interest on zero