KIDS CLINIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT

capital assets not charged u/s 45 shall be deemed to be the profit and gains chargeable to tax of the successor company. Section 47A(3) has used the word ‘any’ clause (d) of proviso to section 47(xiii) specifies that the aggregate of the share holding of the partners of the firm in the company should not be less than

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

5. Petitioner’s application dated 19.5.2009 Annexure-O before the CBDT for waiver of interest in terms of the notification dated 26.6.2006 Annexure-N when not acted upon led to the petitioner filing an application before the respondent-Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore-3 Annexure-P, which when rejected by order dated 26.4.2012, Annexure-A has presented this petition

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

Section 45(4) of the Act is attracted and assessee is liable to pay capital gains. 5. Aggrieved by the said

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 - assessee towards sale of technical know-how was capital in nature of goodwill which is liable

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

5 and 12 of this agreement The draft of the license agreement will be submitted by SC to AEEI by July 15, 1995 and will be finalized by July 30.1995. 13 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

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LATE KHOOBCHAND M MAKHIJA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

5. The undisputed facts in this case are that the assessee has sold the house under a registered sale deed dated 7.3.1996 for a consideration of Rs.3,73,00,550/-. The indexed cost of that old house as claimed and accepted by the authorities below is Rs.88,40,867/-. Therefore, the capital gain is Rs.2,84,59,683/-. The assessee

ANTONY PARAKAL KURIAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

5. The Assessing Authority denied the claim made under Section 54 and 54F of the Act and an order under Section 143(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 vs. MRS SHAKUNTALA DEVI

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

5. Assessee pursued her grievance before ITAT in ITA No.1170(BNG)/2008. Tribunal after considering the rival contentions held that assessee was entitled to deduction since for the purposes of Section 54 of the Act the date of purchase was to be taken as the basis namely, entering into a agreement for purchasing the new property. It also came

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

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,ASHOK S.KINAGI

45, the amount 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…………….” 12. On combined reading of these provisions, any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset with the exception as saved

M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

5) of the Act. The three agreements produced by the parties clearly disclose that one is with regard to transfer of the knowhow and another is with regard to non-competition fee and the third agreement is with regard to transfer of its current brand, trade mark. As per the agreement for transfer of technical knowhow, Rs.25.00 crores has been

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

5. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing claim of assessee under section 54F of the Act by following the decision of this Hon’ble Court in case of CIT V/s Sambandam Udaykumar even when the assessee has not satisfied all the conditions prescribed under

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

45 of the Act provides for how profit or gain arising from transfer of capital asset is to be charged to income tax as ‘Capital gains’. Sub-section (2) provides that the ‘fair market value’ of the asset would be deemed to be the ‘full value of the consideration’ on the relevant date. Section

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

Bench: The

45 and 54F of the said Act, and in particular sub-section (4) of Section 54F of the said Act, held that the appellant was entitled to withdraw the amount deposited in the Capital Gains Account subject to deduction of tax applicable to the case in hand. 5

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S IND SING DEVELOPERS P LTD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

45(4) of the Act, that profits and gain if any, arising on transfer of capital by way of distribution of capital assets, assets is assessable in the hands of the AOP only and not in the hands 47 of its members. The settlement deed practically put an end to the AOP and transfer of title in the land

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

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

5. Learned Senior counsel for the assessee submitted that the proceedings under Section 148 of the Act are bad in law inasmuch as the same proposes to re-assess the income when no assessment has taken place. In this connection, our attention has been invited to paragraph 3 of the order dated 19.01.2012 passed by the tribunal wherein the tribunal