KIDS CLINIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT

35,177 (iii)M Harish Rs.23,58,226 (iv)M Suresh Rs.21,17,341 (v) M Rajesh Rs.19,27,253 These 5 partners who became the shareholders of the successor company were however, allotted only 1210 equity shares of Rs.10/- each on 01.05.1999 and remaining shares were allotted to them subsequently in a phased manner. The first allotment came

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: This Bench.

35 share in the interest in the partnership firm. When the retiring partners took cash and retired, they were not relinquishing their interest in the immovable property. What they relinquished is their share in the partnership. Therefore, there is no transfer of a capital asset, as such, no capital gains or profit arises in the facts of this case

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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, the capital gain is to be computed after reducing the cost of acquisition of the asset, cost of any improvement thereto and the expenditure incurred in connection with the transfer of capital assets. In order to avoid the stringent action being taken by the financial institution, the assessee sold the shares

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

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

35, to be carried forward, effect shall first be given to the provisions of this section. (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

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

35 years Son of Sri Satyanarayan Agarwal …Appellant (By Sri Jehangir D.J Mistri, Sr. Counsel for Sri. S.Parthasarathi, & Sri Mallaharao K., Advocates) AND: The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 11(2) 14/3, Rashtrothana Bhavan 2 5th Flr. Nrupatunga Road Bangalore …Respondents (By E.R.Indra Kumar, Senior Counsel for Sri Sanmathi, Advocate) This ITA is filed under Section 260A

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

Capital gains’ under the Act. In a recent case of Smt Krishna Bajaj Vs ACIT – 2014(41) Taxman.com 445 (Kar) the question for consideration before this Court was “Whether the authorities were justified in relying on either the guideline value for the purpose of stamp duty and registration charges, or the value adopted under the Wealth Tax Act, for determining

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 at that point of time. Article 1 to 4 of the settlement deed dated 2nd April 2004 is reproduced hereunder: Article I- Assignment: 35 (1) The FIRST PARTY confirms that in pursuance to the development Agreement they have permitted the SECOND PARTY to carry out construction/ development on the Schedule Property. The SECOND PARTY is entitled to continue

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI DINESH D RANKA

The appeal is allowed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

capital gains can be levied? 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: The respondent – assessee is carrying on the business in real estate. Admittedly, he owned 35 acres 6 guntas of 4 land at Kothanur Village. The entire land was converted from agriculture to housing purposes in the year 1992. The Bangalore Development Authority approved the plan

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

SHRI N G CHANDRA REDDY (HUF) vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

35. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that there has been transfer within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Income Tax act read with section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 on the facts of the case. 36. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in not holding that the mandatory conditions

THE COMMR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S NADATUR HOLDINGS AND INVESTMENTS PVT LTD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

Section 41(ii) of the Act. The respondent-company is not dealing with the shares business. The shares were treated as investment. He also relied upon some of the paragraphs in the judgment relied upon by the appellant and also in a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in DALHOUSIE INVESTMENT TRUST CO. LTD., v/s COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

V.S. CHANDRASHEKAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the first substantial question of law is

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

gains. It is further 14 submitted that assessee is not entitled to produce the documents before this court without appropriate application which is supported by an affidavit. 9. By way of rejoinder reply, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that this court may record a finding with regard to applicability of Section 50C in the fact situation of the case

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

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

gain and it cannot be subjected to tax in any manner under any head of income. It is not liable for tax for the assessment year under consideration in terms of sections 2(24), 28, 45 and 56 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Carbon credits are made available to the assessee on account of saving of energy consumption

M/S FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

35. On merits of the case, the learned counsel for the Assessee Company, Mr. Pardiwala drew our attention to the definition of Section 2(22) of the Act which defines the word ‘Dividend’ and the said definition to the extent relevant for his submissions, though we have indicated above that we are not deciding the question of taxability here

M/S DIFFUSION ENGINEERS LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

gains in the business or profession”. It means that Section 35AB is applicable only if the expenditure is in the nature of capital expenditure. Though the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee is revenue in nature, falling under Section 37 of the Act, the Tribunal failed to appreciate the same

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI BHARAT R GAJRIA

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

capital gains as offered by the assessee. He also disallowed the claim made under Section 40[a][ia] of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source before making payment to certain parties. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] who partly allowed the same. Aggrieved

SMT Y MANJULA REDDY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

35,00,000/- vide sale deed dated 27.10.2007. The share of the assessee was Rs.1,60,50,000/- and after deduction, the selling expenses and indexing the cost of acquisition, the Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.1,56,85,225/- was assessed by the assessee. In respect of the aforesaid capital gain, the assessee claimed exemption under Section

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. KRUPANIDHI EDUCATION

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

35(2)(iv) is allowed in respect of capital expenditure on scientific research, no depreciation is allowable under section 32 on the same asset and in the absence of clear statutory indication to the contrary, the statute should not be read as to permit an assessee two deductions? 2. Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case