SRI. P S SESHADRI. vs. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, this petition is allowed in part

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice Ram Mohan Reddy

Section 54EC. Petitioner filed a return of income-tax on 25.9.2006 declaring income of Rs.2,01,284/- and paid self assessment tax of Rs.3,321/- and thereafter on 09.10.2006 filed a revised return of income disclosing W.P.42424/12 3 sale of property at Chennai claiming exemption of investment under the ‘capital gain

THE COMMR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S DYNAMIC ENTERPRISE

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: This Bench.

3) and (4) of the Income Tax Act reads as under: “45. Capital Gains.- [(1)] Any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save as otherwise provided in sections

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

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

capital gains. The provisions of Section 56 read with Section 10[3] are quite apposite. Entire sale consideration not allocable

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SHASTHA PHARMA LABORATORIES

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

3) and (4) which exclusively dealt with transfer of a capital asset by a person to a firm, by way of distribution of the capital assets on the - 20 - dissolution of the firm. Section 45 (4) of the Act reads as under:- “Section 45 (4): The profits or gains

ANTONY PARAKAL KURIAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

section 54F, is perverse and contrary to law? 4 2. The assessee, a salaried person working in M/s IGUS India Private Limited, had filed a return of income showing the capital gains for the assessment year under consideration. CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE: 3

SRI HARIRAM HOTELS P LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (III)

Appeal is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

capital gain in the profit and loss account. Section 211 of the Companies Act contemplates, form and contents of balance sheet and profit and loss account. Sub-sections 3

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LATE KHOOBCHAND M MAKHIJA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

3 - short hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in respect of two residential houses purchased and also holding that the assessee is entitled to the exemption under Section 54(2) of the Act, to the extent of unutilized deposit in the capital gain

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

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

3) No loss other than the loss referred to in the proviso to subsection (1) of this section shall be carried for- ward under this 20 section for more than eight assessment years immediately succeeding the assessment year for which the loss was first computed. 74. Losses under the head" Capital gains

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS SHAKUNTALA DEVI

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

Section 148. Accordingly, assessment proceedings came to be framed. 3. Assessing officer has noticed that assessee had sold a flat at Mumbai on 04.02.2003 for a total consideration of `1,71,00,000/- and had worked out long-term capital gain

M/S. THE KOLAR & CHICKBALLAPUR vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Capital gains” and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub-section (1) of section 72, or sub-section (2) of section 73, or sub-section (2) of section 73A or sub-section (1) or sub-section (3

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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, it is a capital asset for the purpose of depreciation and exigible to tax under the capital gain. Sri.Thirumalesh relied upon the judgments reported in (2011) 237 CTR 227 (Madras) in the case of INDO TECH ELECTRIC COMPANY v/s DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX and (2011) 337 ITR 178 (Delhi) in the case

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

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

3 - “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the guidance value is the sale consideration for computing capital gain when the terms and conditions of the agreement specify the value of consideration and when the provisions of section

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

capital gains and other sources. For the assessment year 2004-05, he 3 filed his Income Tax return on 16.12.2004 declaring an income of Rs.4,82,330/- and agriculture income of Rs.1,62,470/-. Such return was first processed under section

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

capital gains tax without taking into account the agreement and assignment deed in the proper prospective and consequently recorded a perverse finding by holding that the same cannot be brought 5 to tax both in the Block Assessment as well as regular assessment?” 3. Learned Counsel Sri. K.V. Aravind, appearing for the Revenue, would contend that section

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

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,ASHOK S.KINAGI

3. The assessing officer completed the assessment by computing the long term capital gains, quantifying the sale consideration as the cost of construction of 26% of constructed area and allotted to the assessee as per the JDA dated 11.5.2009 treating the cost of construction as the full value of consideration. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner

SRI B V ACHARYA S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA ACHARYA vs. SRI N VENKATESHAIAH

Bench: V.JAGANNATHAN

capitation fee issue is concerned, the 18 submission made is that the writ petition filed in this regard by the students came to be dismissed by this court. Therefore, none of the offences alleged in the complaint can be said to have been, even remotely, made out against the petitioner and thus, it is clear that the entire complaint

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. For answering this a look at section 45(3) and Section 45(4) of the Act are necessary

P VIKRAM MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

capital gain offered by the assessee, Rs.1,50,00,000/- after claiming the applicable exemptions against the receipt of consideration of Rs.4,00,00,000/- in respect of transfer of part of the rights in the brand name “MTR”. 3. The said return of income was selected for scrutiny and order dated 31.12.2010 under Section