THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LATE KHOOBCHAND M MAKHIJA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

49,204/- and held that Rs.3,06,88,348/- is the capital gains and a sum of Rs.1,19,16,389/- is the cost of investment in respect of purchase of one residential house and therefore, the long term capital gain is Rs.1,87,71,959/- which amount, according to him, was not deposited before the due date. Therefore

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

49,95,03,232/-. In the assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C of the Act, the Assessing Authority, vide order dated 18.02.2011 inter alia held that assessee had acquired foreign currency convertible bonds and after conversion of the same into shares, sold the same during the relevant previous year and disclosed short term capital gains

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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

49,82,784/-. Insofar as the receipt of Rs.4.00 crores towards non-competition fee is concerned, the Tribunal held that it is only a capital receipt and not liable to be taxed. With regard to the disallowance of claim of long term and short term capital loss is concerned, full benefit has been given to the assessee by 9 setting

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

49(1) and 2(42A) and Explanation 1(b) of Section 2(42A) of the Act. The case of the Revenue is that the said Explanation refers to the definition of short term capital asset and cannot be extended for computation of indexation of cost of acquisition which only arises in case of long term capital gain

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. VIKRAM REDDY

In the result, the fifth substantial question of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

49(1) with effect from 01.04.1999 has been inserted and as per the aforesaid clause, the cost of acquisition of capital asset has to be reckoned from the date of computing capital gains when a transfer of 16 capital gains take place in the manner referred to in Clause (xiii) of Section

M/S BHORUKA ENGINEERING INDS. LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

capital gain based on such sale of immovable property. The assessee is only a share holder in BFSL. It is BFSL who has purchased the immovable property under registered sale deeds. Therefore, assessee is not the owner of the immovable property. However, the assessee has transferred his shares for a valuable consideration of Rs.4,490/- per share. The income derived

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

49 one rupee, it was chargeable to tax at flat rates. It in other words it means that the profit of the AOP was always taxable in the hands of the AOP at maximum rates. Once the profits are taxable in the hands of AOP, by virtue of Section 86 read with Section 110 of the Act, the share income

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. HOSAGRAHAR

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

49,752/- long term capital gain determined at Rs.6,76,02,248/-. Against the long term capital gains, the assessee has claimed exemption under Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KHIVRAJ MOTORS

Appeal is hereby dismissed;

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,VINEET SARAN

Section 263 of the Act with a direction to the Assessing Officer to redo the same and consequently the appeal before the Tribunal has become infructuous? b) Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in holding that the addition of Rs.53,26,567/- made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the 18% of the project cost of Rs.19.43 crores

THE COMMR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S NADATUR HOLDINGS AND INVESTMENTS PVT LTD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

capital gain as applicable to the original donor as described under Section 49(1)(ii) of the Act. 4. The Assessing

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MPHASIS LIMITED

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

gains or short term capital loss. Therefore, the tax stood cleared in the year 2016 through revised returns. This fact is not in dispute. After the petitioners filed their revised returns complaints come to be registered against all these petitioners invoking Section 200 of the CrPC before the learned Magistrate for offences punishable under Section

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

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

Section 45[4] of the Act? 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in arriving at a conclusion that the assets held by the assessee was treated as its stock in trade and therefore could not be brought to tax under the head capital gains despite there being no evidence to arrive at such a conclusion or a categorical assertion from

M/S FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

gains arising to such shareholder or the holder of other specified securities, as the case may be, in the year in which such shares or other specified securities were purchased by the company. Explanation: For the purposes of this section, “specified securities” shall have the meaning assigned to it in Explanation to section 77A of the Companies

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SUBEX LTD

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

gain to tax accordingly. The arguments of the learned counsel for the assessee that the loss was not created because it was capital under Section 43A and as such it has been added back being foreign currency loss has some force. 9. At this juncture, it would be apt to refer to paras 38 and 39 of the order

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

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 3 partial partition of Hindu Undivided Family and thereby deleting the long term capital gain

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