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

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

capital gains cannot be shifted from income. It is also urged that the case of the assessee is 14 not of stock in trade but the assets of the assessee are fixed assets and not in stock in trade, therefore, the reliance placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in COCANADA RADHASWAMI BANK LTD. SUPRA has no application

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIT (A) vs. SHRI J KRISHNA PALEMAR

Appeal is allowed;

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

45; b. if the cost of the new asset is less than the net consideration in respect of the original asset, so much of the capital gain as bears to the whole of the capital gain the same proportion as the cost of the new asset bears to the net consideration, shall not be charged under section

M/S. EVERGREEN HARDWARE STORES vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

Appeal is allowed

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

section 45(4) are attracted when there has been no distribution or dissolution of the firm and consequently confirming the addition to an extent of Rs.68,86,826/- as short term capital gains

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. INTEL CAPITAL (CAYMAN) CORPORATION

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 45 of the Act, the cost of acquisition has to be 6 taken as the cost of debentures. It is further submitted that in case of any conflict between scheme / Rules and the provisions of the Act, the provisions of the Act would prevail. It is also submitted that the Bombay High Court in ‘KINGFISHER CAPITAL

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MEDICAL RELIEF SOCIETY OF

Appeal is dismissed by

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

gains be calculated as per the provisions of Sections 45 to 55A of the Act whereas the provisions of Sections 45 to 55A of the Act deals with only computation of capital

M/S GOKULDAS EXPORTS vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed

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

section 45(4) of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case? 9. Without prejudice whether any capital gains

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S C RAMAIAH REDDY

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

capital gains by invoking Section 45(2) of the Act. 3. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI C RAMAIAH REDDY

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

Section 45(2) and 49(1) of the Income Tax Act are not applicable in respect to the property received by assessee on partial partition of Hindu Undivided 3 Family and thereby deleting the long term capital gain

M/S BEST TRADING & AGENCIES LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

capital gains. The difference between the sale consideration and indexed cost of acquisition represents the actual cost of the assessee, which is taxable as per Section 45

SHRI SRINIVASAN CHANDIRA KUMAR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 48(i) of the Act the computation of capital gains has to be made by reducing from the full value of consideration or accruing as a result of transfer of the capital asset, expenditure wholly and exclusively incurred in connection with such transfer. Clause 29 of the share purchase agreement, reads as under: 8 Payment to Employees: Within

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

capital gains earned thereon had not been declared for tax. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- was brought to tax. 15. Further at paragraph 8 of the order relating to bogus transportation expenses claimed for the assessment years 2009- 10 and 2010-11, the assessing officer has brought on record that the appellant has claimed transportation expenses

M/S TELCO CONSTRUCTION CO.LTD vs. THE ASST COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

45, JUBILEE BUILDING, MUSEUM ROAD BANGALORE-560025 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. SANDEEP SINGH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O SRI. JOGINDER SINGH JOGI. ... APPELLANT (BY SMT. JINITHA CHATTERJEE, ADV., FOR SRI. S. PARTHASARATHI, ADV.,) AND: THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-12(4) NO.14/3, 4TH FLOOR RASTROTHANA BHAVAN (OPP. RBI), NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560001. ... RESPONDENT

SRI A NARAYANASWAMY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

capital gains were computed based on the said agreement? 2. Heard Smt. H. Vani, learned Advocate for the Assessee and Shri. K.V. Aravind, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue. 3. Brief facts of the case are, a search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 19612 was conducted on 02.11.2001 and thereafter, a Notice dated 06.03.2002 under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI C RAMAIAH REDDY

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

capital gains of Rs.5,69,78,516/- made by the assessing officer? 3 (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal was correct in law in holding that the provisions of Section 45

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

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

capital gains tax, etc., the official figure should be lesser. In a sense, to that extent, it is a case of tax avoidance which is culpable both legally and morally. One cannot gainfully argue that it is a case of tax planning, intent being corrupt. However, that has been done at the instance of the 1st defendant, at whose hands

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. M/S VECTRA CONSULTING

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

gain of Rs.235.85 crores in the hands of the Company on selling of shares of M/s.Jupiter Capital Private Limited to Mr.M.K.Chandrashekhar father of Mr.Rajeev Chandrashekar, the major share holder of the Company. The Company sold its shares of M/s.Jupiter Capital Private Limited to Mr.M.K.Chandrashekhar, at the price of Rs.36.04 crores. He held the shares only for a day and sold

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GALI JANARDHANA REDDY

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

capital gains earned thereon had not been declared for tax. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- was brought to tax. 14.Further at paragraph 8 of the order relating to bogus transportation expenses claimed for the assessment years 2009- 10 and 2010-11, the assessing officer has brought on record that the appellant has claimed transportation expenses for the years

THE COMMISSIONER vs. M/S CANARA BANK

In the result, we do not find merit in these

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 45(2) and also that the Bank had no working regarding deprecated value of assets and capital gains on sale