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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

capital gains tax liability to be fixed in the hands of successor company for the previous year in which the requirements or conditions of Clause (b) of Proviso to Clause(xiii) of Section 47 are not complied with vide Section 47A(3) of the Act, which in our view, the petitioner with the aforesaid interpretation, were not so complied with

KIDS CLINIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT

capital gains tax liability to be fixed in the hands of successor company for the previous year in which the requirements or conditions of Clause (b) of Proviso to Clause(xiii) of Section 47 are not complied with vide Section 47A(3) of the Act, which in our view, the petitioner with the aforesaid interpretation, were not so complied with

ANTONY PARAKAL KURIAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

26. In our considered view, Section 54F of the Act which deals with capital gain and transfer of certain capital

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

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

capital gains, in view of B.C.Srinivasa Setty supra, the Revenue has made an attempt to treat the technical know-how as goodwill in the second round. 15. This reasoning of the Tribunal cannot be faulted with, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in B.C.Srinivasa Setty supra. The gain from transfer of business by implication

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

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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

26,607/-. 4. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) was issued on 25-10-2002. The authorized representative of the assessee appeared on behalf of the assessee. On examination of income tax returns and other details furnished by the assessee- Company, it was noticed that the assessee-company 4 entered into an agreement

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

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,ASHOK S.KINAGI

capital gain when the terms and conditions of the agreement specify the value of consideration to be received in the form of constructed area at 26% and when the provisions of section

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

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. VIKRAM REDDY

In the result, the fifth substantial question of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

capital gains of Rs.222,26,14,953/- was taxed under Section 45 read with Section 49(1) of the Act and Short

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 and therefore he submits the order passed by the authorities are valid and legal and does not call for any interference. 12. From the material on record, it is clear the 30 acres of land in White Field belong to Bhoruka Steel Limited (BSL). It became a sick industrial company. Before BIFR, a scheme

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

26. Once we conclude that there indeed was an AOP, the 2nd question is whether there was an incidence of capital gains. For answering this a look at section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S. BAGMANE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

Section 153A of the Act and had shown the ‘capital gain’ for the purpose of taxable liability. He submitted that in the assessment proceedings up to the stage of the Tribunal, voluminous records were produced to show that the property of the land was for all purposes can be treated as ‘capital asset’ and there were voluminous circumstances to show

M/S BAGMANE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

Section 153A of the Act and had shown the ‘capital gain’ for the purpose of taxable liability. He submitted that in the assessment proceedings up to the stage of the Tribunal, voluminous records were produced to show that the property of the land was for all purposes can be treated as ‘capital asset’ and there were voluminous circumstances to show

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KHIVRAJ MOTORS

Appeal is hereby dismissed;

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,VINEET SARAN

26,567/- made by the Assessing Officer came to be deleted. 4. Revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal which did not find favour and accordingly it was held that Long Term Capital Gains arrived at by the assessee is fair which does not require interference and the addition made on this amount which was deleted

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

26 guntas 08.02.2008 08.02.2008 08.02.2008 14.01.2008 MR Sampangiramaiah 11 acres 08.02.2008 MR Padmavathy Trust 9 acres 32 guntas 08.02.2008 3. Assessees filed returns of income for A.Y.1 2008-09 under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) and revised returns excluding capital gains

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M.R.KODANDARAM

Appeals are dismissed

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

26 guntas 08.02.2008 08.02.2008 08.02.2008 14.01.2008 MR Sampangiramaiah 11 acres 08.02.2008 MR Padmavathy Trust 9 acres 32 guntas 08.02.2008 3. Assessees filed returns of income for A.Y.1 2008-09 under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) and revised returns excluding capital gains

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

26 guntas 08.02.2008 08.02.2008 08.02.2008 14.01.2008 MR Sampangiramaiah 11 acres 08.02.2008 MR Padmavathy Trust 9 acres 32 guntas 08.02.2008 3. Assessees filed returns of income for A.Y.1 2008-09 under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) and revised returns excluding capital gains