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

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

29,08,626/- after paying Security Transaction Tax, Service Tax, etc., The sales were executed through a registered stock broker on a recognized stock exchange namely M/s Magadh Stock Exchange Association. The shares were sold to DLF Commercial Developers Limited. The assessee claimed the gain on sale of shares as exempt from taxation under Section

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

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

capital gains in the impugned assessment year for the sum of Rs.14 crores. That the AOP had not submitted itself for taxation or the failure of the AOP to make a return of income, would not shift the tax incidence to its members. Especially so, since charging Section 4 of the Act in contrast to Section

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 affirmed the decision of the ITAT that the sale of said land did not form part of capital gains. Thus the argument of Shri. Sanmathi that the lands in these cases fall within the BIAPAA and therefore the sale of lands attract capital gains tax also fails. 29

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 affirmed the decision of the ITAT that the sale of said land did not form part of capital gains. Thus the argument of Shri. Sanmathi that the lands in these cases fall within the BIAPAA and therefore the sale of lands attract capital gains tax also fails. 29

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 affirmed the decision of the ITAT that the sale of said land did not form part of capital gains. Thus the argument of Shri. Sanmathi that the lands in these cases fall within the BIAPAA and therefore the sale of lands attract capital gains tax also fails. 29

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 affirmed the decision of the ITAT that the sale of said land did not form part of capital gains. Thus the argument of Shri. Sanmathi that the lands in these cases fall within the BIAPAA and therefore the sale of lands attract capital gains tax also fails. 29

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 affirmed the decision of the ITAT that the sale of said land did not form part of capital gains. Thus the argument of Shri. Sanmathi that the lands in these cases fall within the BIAPAA and therefore the sale of lands attract capital gains tax also fails. 29

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

Section 2 (14) (iii) of the Act and affirmed the decision of the ITAT that the sale of said land did not form part of capital gains. Thus the argument of Shri. Sanmathi that the lands in these cases fall within the BIAPAA and therefore the sale of lands attract capital gains tax also fails. 29

M/S SRI BALAJI CORPORATE SERVICES vs. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

29 the entitlement of the land losers to receive compensation under the said Act of 2013 and the liability of the respondents to pass awards and pay the same has same has been recognised, accepted, confirmed and affirmed by this Court in the aforesaid litigations which have has attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon the State and KIADB

L. VENKATARAMANA RAJU vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

29 the entitlement of the land losers to receive compensation under the said Act of 2013 and the liability of the respondents to pass awards and pay the same has same has been recognised, accepted, confirmed and affirmed by this Court in the aforesaid litigations which have has attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon the State and KIADB

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

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

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MPHASIS LIMITED

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

gains or short term capital loss. Therefore, the tax stood cleared in the year 2016 through revised returns. This fact is not in dispute. After the petitioners filed their revised returns complaints come to be registered against all these petitioners invoking Section 200 of the CrPC before the learned Magistrate for offences punishable under Section

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

section 45(2) of the Act. In the reasons recorded by the AO before issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the AO has come to the conclusion that by virtue of JDA dated 5.2.2005, there was a transfer of the capital asset giving rise to capital gains u/s. 45(2) of the Act. In this regard

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

section 45(2) of the Act. In the reasons recorded by the AO before issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the AO has come to the conclusion that by virtue of JDA dated 5.2.2005, there was a transfer of the capital asset giving rise to capital gains u/s. 45(2) of the Act. In this regard

SHRI. NAVIN JOLLY vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

capital gain of Rs.1,55,47,315/-. The appellant further declared that he had constructed a residential property during the year situate at 808/7 and 808/8 Kaikondanahalli, Sarjapur, Bangalore. The appellant claimed exemption under Section 54F of the Act to the extent of Rs.1,55,47,315/-. Before the assessing officer, the assessee agreed voluntarily to offer