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

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

M/S EMBASSY BRINDAVAN DEVELOPERS vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

capital gains tax. Adverting to Explanation 2(a) of Section 263 of the Act, he contended that jurisdiction under Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI D G GOPALA GOWDA

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

capital gains at Rs.22,17,940/- for the sale of the property. However, the assessee was exempted from paying tax since the fund was utilized fully towards purchase of 4 another property at Koramangala. The Commissioner of Income Tax issued notice under Section 263

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CISCO SYSTEMS

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

263 of the Act of 1961. 11. Learned counsel for the assessee has also drawn the attention of this Court towards the CBDT Circular No.2/2001 dated 9.2.2001, wherein it has been clarified that for the purpose of taxation there is no difference between the operating 10 lease and finance lease to claim depreciation. He has also argued that the assessing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S SUBHASH KABINI POWER CORPORATION LIMITED

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

capital gains at Rs.22,17,940/- for the sale of the property. However, the assessee was exempted from paying tax since the fund was utilized fully towards purchase of another property at Koramangala. The Commissioner of Income Tax issued notice under Section 263

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

Appeal stands dismissed and second

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,VINEET SARAN

capital gains under Section 45(1) and Section 48 of the Act and as such the order passed by the Commissioner under Section 263

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. VIKRAM REDDY

In the result, the fifth substantial question of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

capital gains take place in the manner referred to in Clause (xiii) of Section 47 of the Act. It is also pointed out that during the previous year relevant to Assessment Year 2007-08, there is no transfer of shares by the assessee (individual / HUF) in favour of Godrej Beverages and Foods Ltd. It is also submitted that the matter

K R SATYANARAYANA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders passed by the Commissioner of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

capital gains. However, no further action in the matter was taken . 3. Thereafter a notice under Section 263 of the Act was issued

M/S KEMFIN SERVICES PVT LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

capital gains have to be completed up to the date of conversion into stock in trade and for the period thereafter the difference 10 between value of sale and stock in trade has to be considered as business income and therefore, the order of the tribunal needs modification to the aforesaid extent. It is urged that provisions of Section

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

Appeal is hereby dismissed;

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,VINEET SARAN

capital gains is to be made and for the said purpose Section 48 of the Act requires to be looked into which would indicate that for the purposes of arriving at the valuation, it is full value of consideration as agreed to between the parties which has to be taken into consideration. Hence, he submits that substantial questions

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. KUMERGODE INVESTMENTS LTD

Appeal is Dismissed

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,N.KUMAR

Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, restoring the order of the Assessing Authority. 2. The Assessee Company is in the business of financial investments. During the year 2003-04, the assessee company earned capital gain

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHAITANYA PROPERTIES PVT LTD.,

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

capital gain u/s.45(2) of the Act. It was pointed out by him that in the reasons recorded the AO has not referred to any material which had come into his possession subsequent to the passing of the order u/s.143(3) of the Act based on which he 22 entertained belief that Development Agreement resulted in a Transfer and thereby

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) vs. M/S POST & BSNL EMPLOYEES

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

capital gain u/s.45(2) of the Act. It was pointed out by him that in the reasons recorded the AO has not referred to any material which had come into his possession subsequent to the passing of the order u/s.143(3) of the Act based on which he 22 entertained belief that Development Agreement resulted in a Transfer and thereby

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SMT HEMA KRISHNAMURTHY

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

capital gains and claimed exemption under Section 54F of the Act. It is further submitted that rental income derived from commercial 7 use of the property was considered as income from house property by virtue of Section 22 of the Act and the same was shown in the return. The tribunal has rightly held that the Commissioner of Income

M/S MYPOL POLYMERS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

Bench: L.NARAYANA SWAMY

capital gains and claimed exemption under Section 54F of the Act. It is further submitted that rental income derived from commercial 7 use of the property was considered as income from house property by virtue of Section 22 of the Act and the same was shown in the return. The tribunal has rightly held that the Commissioner of Income

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

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

Capital Gains under Section 80P of the Act. Pursuant to which, the assessing officer has submitted a reply as under;- - 9 - “REPLY TO AUDIT ENQUIRY NO.2 DATED 25.07.2006 Name of the assessee : Kannika parameshwaari Co-op. Bank Ltd., Davanagere, Asst. year/s : 2004-05 The assessee is a Regional Rural Bank notified u/s 3 of the Regional Rural Banking Service

SRI ABDUL GAFFAR S/O SRI ABDUL RAHIM vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

capital gain from the sale was in a sum of Rs.3,60,000/-. The assessee owned a residential house at the time of sale of the said site. The 3 assessee invested the sale value in improving and remodeling his residential house. The assessee claimed exemption of the said amount towards reconstruction and remodeling of the existing residential house