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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

24. Therefore, we are satisfied that on a reasonable and harmonious construction of the relevant provisions of the Act quoted above, the Company in the present case was rightly held liable for the capital gains tax liability by virtue of Section

KIDS CLINIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT

24. Therefore, we are satisfied that on a reasonable and harmonious construction of the relevant provisions of the Act quoted above, the Company in the present case was rightly held liable for the capital gains tax liability by virtue of Section

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

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

gain on sale of “technical know-how” was is not capital in nature and it is also not chargeable to tax under Section 45 of the Act when the assessing authority rightly brought to tax as by holding that the consideration received by - 3 - assessee towards sale of technical know-how was capital in nature of goodwill which is liable

ANTONY PARAKAL KURIAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

capital gains in the long-term specified asset then she would be entitled to the benefit mentioned in the said section. There also it is not expressly stated that the investment should be in the name of the assessee. Therefore, to attract section 54 and section 54EC of the Act, what is material is the investment of the sale consideration

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

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

Section 48 of the Act. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the guidance value of the land or the guidance value of the building would be appropriate mode to determine the full value of consideration in the case of a transfer where consideration for the transfer of a capital asset is not attributable or determinable. Hence

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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

gain. There is no dispute regarding the said transaction. The saleable items were sold during financial year 2000-01 and remaining raw materials was shifted to rented warehouse while handing over the factory to HILKAL Ltd. All these raw materials are unsalable items, they 20 are toxic materials of Bulk Drug section, they are waste, have no sale value

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

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

capital gains income was in fact business income. It is also pointed out that the subject matter in question in EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS supra was Section 26(2) of the Income 10 Tax Act, 1922 and not Section 24

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

gains in relation to a capital asset, being goodwill of a business. Insertion of the words, “registered trade marks or brand name associated with the business” by the Finance Act, 2001 depicts the intention of the Legislature to levy tax in relation to capital asset, being a trade mark or brand name associated with the business, which was not exigible

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

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,ASHOK S.KINAGI

capital gains under the Income Tax Act, it has been held thus: - 23 - “11. In order that the provisions of Section 53A of the T.P. Act be attracted, first and foremost, the transferee must, in part performance of the contract, have taken possession of the property or any part thereof. Secondly, the transferee must have performed or be willing

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

24 justification and explains the contents of the main section, whereas ‘Proviso’ puts a condition on the contents of the main section or qualifies the same. ‘Proviso’ is generally intended to restrain the enacting clause, whereas ‘Explanation’ explains or clarifies the main section. Meaning thereby, ‘Proviso’ limits the scope of the enactment as it puts a condition, whereas ‘Explanation’ clarifies

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

24. In the instant case, the assessee is holding the shares in BFSL from 01.10.1984. Therefore, it is a long term Capital asset. The transaction has taken place subsequent to 28.09.2004 as such the second condition is fulfilled. They have paid the security transaction tax to Magadha Stock Exchange. Where all these three conditions stipulated under Section

P ARVIND MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

capital gain towards the same has been accepted to be correct. This issue was examined and analyzed by the Assessing Officer on multiple times. - 24 - 21. The foregoing factors would establish that the Assessing Officer had no “reason to believe” any escapement of income to assessment but is clear case of change of opinion. Hence, assumption of jurisdiction

P VIKRAM MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

capital gain towards the same has been accepted to be correct. This issue was examined and analyzed by the Assessing Officer on multiple times. - 24 - 21. The foregoing factors would establish that the Assessing Officer had no “reason to believe” any escapement of income to assessment but is clear case of change of opinion. Hence, assumption of jurisdiction

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S IND SING DEVELOPERS P LTD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

gains, as an essential object for forming an AOP. However the CBDT Circular explaining the above insertion states that such insertion was only to take care of the claim of certain bodies that they did not fall within the definition of a ‘person’ for the sole reason, that they were not supposed to have any income or profits. Section

M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE UNION OF INDIA REPTD BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri W.P. No.26037/2005 C/W W.P.No.4464/2007 & W.P.No.27087/2005(It)

24) of the Act, which provides that income includes the value of any perquisite or profit in lieu of salary taxable under Clauses (2) and (3) of Section 17. This brings us to consider the scheme of computation of total income which is contained in Chapter IV of the Act. Section 14 deals with heads of income. It provides that

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

Appeal is allowed;

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

24, 2018 in ITA No.712/Bang/2014 for the A.Y. 2011-12 has been admitted to consider the following question of law; “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the disallowance of claim made under section 54F of the Act by holding that out of five properties held

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. VIKRAM REDDY

In the result, the fifth substantial question of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

gains" shall be computed, by deducting from the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset the following amounts, namely :— (i) expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer; 19 (ii) the cost of acquisition of the asset and the cost of any improvement thereto: 49. (1) Where

LAHAR SINGH SIROYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

24,2004, after the suit filed by Shri Ranjeet Lal, challenging the validity of the will, had been dismissed. In the “transfer”, one can come to a conclusion that some right in respect of the capital asset in question had been transferred in favour of the vendee and, therefore, some right which the 12 appellants had, in respect