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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: This Bench.

47) of the I.T.Act. Accordingly, notice under Section 148 was issued on 27.03.2002. In reply to the said notice, the assessee-firm contended that it has paid the amount to the retiring partners standing on credit side in respect of capital accounts. There is no transfer of asset and therefore, they are not liable to pay any capital gains

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

Section 2 (47) of the Act, there is no capital gains. They also contended that they have disclosed fully and truly

ANTONY PARAKAL KURIAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

Section 54F of the Act on the entire capital gains from sale of land amounting to Rs.49,08,708/-. 4. The appellant sold a residential house at Angamaly, Kerala i.e., House property in favour of M/s. Fashion Jewellery for Rs.2.42 Crores vide sale deed registered on 08.10.2012. Capital gains amounting to Rs.2,23,47

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

capital gain realized from the transfer of FCBBs or shares to a resident would be liable to tax in India at 10 percent. 16. In light of the amendment to section 115AC of the Act, clause (x) of Section 47

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

47. (iv) such assessee being a Hindu undivided family, by the mode referred to in sub-section (2) of section 64 at any time after the 31st day of December, 1969, the cost of acquisition of the asset shall be deemed to be the cost for which the previous owner of the property acquired it, as increased by ITA.No.456/2017

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. VIKRAM REDDY

In the result, the fifth substantial question of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI DINESH D RANKA

The appeal is allowed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

Section 2(47) of the Act and therefore the Appellate Commissioner held that the capital gains have arisen to the assessee

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

Section 2(47)(v) of the IT Act. Accordingly, capital gains were computed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7442-DB ITA No. 637 of 2016 3.3 Aggrieved

M/S PRAKASH ELECTRIC COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

capital gains tax liability by virtue of Section 47(A)(3) of the Act read with Section 47(xiii)(b) of the Act. We are of the opinion

LAHAR SINGH SIROYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

47) of the Act, we are of the view that the appellants were entitled to relief under section 54 of the Act, in respect of the long-term capital gain

CHITTHARANJAN A DASANNACHARYA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

gains' as claimed by the Appellant? ii. The Hon'ble Tribunal was correct in holding that stock options did not constitute a 'capital asset' under Section 2(14) of the Act? iii. The Hon'ble Tribunal was right in concluding that cashless exercise of stock options does not constitute transfer of a long term capital asset under Section 2(47

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

capital gains, and also disallowed 50% of expenses on transfer claimed by the assessee. Besides this, certain other disallowances were also made by the Assessing Officer. Challenging the same, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who granted certain relief, but confirmed the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act; the assessment

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S AMCO BATTERIES LTD.,

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 2(47) of the Act liable for capital gains was not disclosed by the assessee and recorded a perverse

M/S HMA DATA SYSTEM P LTD., vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

47,800/- earned on the sale of 50,000 equity shares of M/s.Diebold HMA P. Ltd., was liable to be brought to tax under the head “capital gains” and not “income from business” as held by the Assessing Officer despite the assessee increasing the profit and 5 loss account in respect of the value of the shares for each assessment

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HMA DATA SYSTEMS P LTD.,

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

47,800/- earned on the sale of 50,000 equity shares of M/s.Diebold HMA P. Ltd., was liable to be brought to tax under the head “capital gains” and not “income from business” as held by the Assessing Officer despite the assessee increasing the profit and 5 loss account in respect of the value of the shares for each assessment

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.GAYATHRI ENTERPRISES

Bench: B.MANOHAR,D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

capital gains of the firm in the year in which the transfer has taken place in terms of the provisions of section 45[4] of the Act. 12 11. In support of such submission, Sri. M V Seshachala, learned counsel has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of ‘THE 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

Section 2(47) of the Act. In this connection, reliance has been placed on decisions of the Supreme Court in 'SANJEEV LAL VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH', 365 ITR 389 and therefore, the consideration has rightly been subjected to capital gains