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

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

45, the amount - 9 - chargeable to income-tax as income of such specified entity under that sub-section which is attributable to the capital asset being transferred by the specified entity, calculated in the prescribed manner: Provided…………….” 10. On combined reading of these provisions, any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset with the exception

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

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

Appeal is allowed;

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

2-1-42/1. This might be adjacent to the Chilimbi property, which is shown in the Fixed Schedule of the Balance Sheet of the assessee. The assessee might have clubbed all the land in the properties, which is called as Chilimbi property in the Balance-sheet for the purpose of development of residential complex. But, it does not take

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 in respect of the building at Audugodi on the facts and circumstances of the case. I.T.A No.201/2017 3 2

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

45,96,38,679 Interest Income Smt.Lakshmi Aruna 2,42,26,434 Ms.G.Bramhani (Minor daughter) 9,90,386 Master G.Kireeti (Minor son) 6,33,782 2,58,50,602 Gross Total Income 48,73,08,092 Tax thereon 14,60,43,427 Add:Education Cess @ 3% 43,81,302 Total tax 15,04,24,729 Less

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

2. Facts leading to filing of the appeal briefly stated are that assessee is a non-resident company. The company filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2008-09 by declaring a total income of `49,95,03,232/-. In the assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C of the Act, the Assessing Authority, vide order

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

45,96,38,679 Interest Income Smt.Lakshmi Aruna 2,42,26,434 Ms.G.Bramhani (Minor daughter) 9,90,386 Master G.Kireeti (Minor son) 6,33,782 2,58,50,602 Gross Total Income 48,73,08,092 Tax thereon 14,60,43,427 Add:Education Cess @ 3% 43,81,302 Total tax 15,04,24,729 Less

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

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 arise when the assets have been transferred at book value and consequently no capital gain is computable on the facts and circumstances of the case? 10. Without prejudice whether the authorities were justified in assessing the firm after

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

Appeal is dismissed by

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

2. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in upholding the decision of the appellate authority that long term capital gains be calculated as per the provisions of Sections 45

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

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

2) of the Act was issued to the assessee. 5. The Assessing Officer passed an order of assessment on 30.11.2007 under Section 143(3) of the Act and disallowed the claim of interest paid to the financial institutions, which was claimed as deduction under Section 57 of the Act to the tune of Rs.12,80,461/- as capital expenditure

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

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

2. Facts leading to filing of the appeal briefly stated are that assessee is an individual, who held 1,35,000 equity shares in a company viz., Trident Power Craft Pvt. Ltd. All the shareholders of the Trident including the assessee sold their shares to a company viz., EMR Mauritius Ltd. for a consideration of Rs.600 Crores. The consideration

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CANARA BANK

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

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

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(2

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

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

2. The facts of the case reveal that the assessee filed a return of income for the assessment year 2009 – 2010, by declaring the total income of Rs.82,89,120/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has offered long term capital loss