KIDS CLINIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT

3), it is to be inferred that if all the conditions mentioned in proviso to section 47(xiii) are not satisfied at the time of succession, then capital gain will be chargeable in the hands of the firm and section 45

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

3) of Section 54EC as it stood prior to its substitution by Finance Act 2007 was without any limit over the ‘capital gain’ investment in capital gains bonds for exemption under Sec. 54EC, from capital gain tax under Sec. 45

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

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

gain on sale of “technical know-how” was is not capital in nature and it is also not chargeable to tax under Section 45 of the Act when the assessing authority rightly brought to tax as by holding that the consideration received by - 3

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

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

3. PAYMENTS a) SC agrees to remit from Japan to AEEI Rs.35.000,000 (Rupees Thirty five Million) in an account to the designated by AEEI for the assignment of registered trademarks, pending trademark and copyright applications, common law rights and goodwill and copyrights as contemplated in Article 2(i),(ii) and (iii) and for the covenant and undertaking from AEEI

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

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 143(1) of the Act and accepted on 2.3.2005. Thereafter, notice under Section 148 was issued on 17.1.2006 stating that the assessee had converted agricultural land into non- agricultural purposes, formed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LATE KHOOBCHAND M MAKHIJA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

3. The Tribunal after considering the rival contentions has upheld the order passed by the Appellate Authority. It is against the said order, the Revenue is in appeal. 4. The substantial questions of law, which arise for consideration in these appeals, are as under: 1. Whether the Tribunal committed an error in holding that the assessee would be entitled

ANTONY PARAKAL KURIAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

3) of the Act was passed by disallowing exemption claimed under Sections 54 and 54F of the Act amounting to Rs.1,98,47,434/- and Rs.49,08,708/- respectively. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which came to be partly allowed, allowing the exemption partly under Section 54 to the extent

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

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

3. The respondent – assessee is an individual deriving managerial remuneration from M/s PVS Beedies (P) Ltd. The assessee filed return of income for the assessment year under consideration declaring the total income of Rs.28,39,420/- and subsequently filed revised return of income declaring the income of Rs.1,02,10,700/- including an additional income of Rs.73

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS SHAKUNTALA DEVI

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

45 as the income of the previous year in which the period of three years from the date of the transfer of the original asset expires; and (ii) the assessee shall be entitled to withdraw such amount in accordance with the scheme aforesaid.” 11. A reading of the above Section would make it explicitly clear that proceeds of sale

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. VIKRAM REDDY

In the result, the fifth substantial question of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

3), and relevant extracts of 47(xiii) Section 48 and 49(1)(e) read as under: (47) "transfer", in relation to a capital asset, includes,— (i) the sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset ; or (ii) the extinguishment of any rights therein ; or 45 Capital Gains

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

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

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

3) in CIT VS. CHUGANDAS AND CO.', 55 ITR 17 (SC). It is also urged that the appellant has brought forward the losses in accordance with the decisions of the Supreme Court in CIT VS. CHUGANDAS AND CO.', supra and 'CIT VS. COCANADA RADHASWAMI BANK LTD' supra. It is also pointed out that the order passed by the tribunal cannot

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS. VANAJA MATTHEN

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: This Court, Questioning The Order Dated 25.01.2017 In

capital gains for sale of property at Rs.10,13,45,711/- and income from other sources at Rs.3,85,142/-. The assessee ITA.No.456/2017 - 3 - acquired the property under the Will dated 24.08.1994 executed by her husband who died on 22.02.2006. Subsequently, the assessee obtained probate from the City Civil Judge, Bangalore, under the order dated 30.10.2006. The husband

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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

3(1) of the Agreement, the transferor shall stop using or in any way dealing with the knowhow for the manufacture of the product from the date hereafter, and shall not use or deal with the same hereinafter except under the instruction and license from the transferor on that behalf. Hence it is clear that under the Agreement, the assessee

PROF. P.N. SHETTY vs. OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: The

45 of the said Act. 6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. We have considered the submissions. 7. Sub-section (4) of Section 54F of the said Act reads thus: 54F – Capital gain on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged in case of investment in residential house. (1) … (2) … (3

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