KIDS CLINIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT

section 47(xiii) is not complied, then it is necessary to give finding that such capital gain will be chargeable in the hands of the successor. Accordingly, it is held that capital gain is not chargeable in the hands of the Assessee firm. 50

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: This Bench.

Section 45(4) of the I.T. Act? or Whether the retiring partner would be liable to pay for the capital gains?” FACTUAL MATRIX 3. Before we proceed to answer the said substantial questions of law, it is necessary to have a look at the factual background. 4 4. M/s.Dynamic Enterprises-the respondent herein is a partnership firm which came into

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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

gain arises out of sale of equity shares of RAL and agreed to sell the said shares at the rate of Rs.0.10 per share to the Managing Director of RAL and sustained the long term 28 capital loss of Rs.3,10,22,946/-. the share purchased worth Rs.1.00 crore was also sold to the RAL within few days, for Rs.1

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

capital gains as there is no transfer which comes within the purview of Section 2(47) of the Act.” In the schedule appended to that return, fixed assets are described and in schedule No.4 land, building, factory, plant and machinery and other assets are valued at Rs.62,50

SRI HARIRAM HOTELS P LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (III)

Appeal is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

50,000/- on 23.01.2003. In the books of accounts of the appellant, the loan was capitalized during the financial year ended on 31.03.2003. The appellant created the capital gain of Rs.51,71,820/- arising out of the sale of the land directly to the capital reserve and not to the profit and 4 loss account. The Assessing Officer took

P VIKRAM MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘Act’ for short] relating to the assessment years 2008-09. 2. The petitioner filed the return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 declaring the total income of Rs.1,83,08,077/- which includes the income from the capital gain offered by the assessee, Rs.1,50

P ARVIND MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘Act’ for short] relating to the assessment years 2008-09. 2. The petitioner filed the return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 declaring the total income of Rs.1,84,03,401/- which includes the income from the capital gain offered by the assessee, Rs.1,50

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

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

capital gain tax for the lands sold during 2005. 3 2. Bhoruka Steel Limited (BSL) was incorporated in the year 1969. It had a mini steel plant for the manufacture of billets and rolled products at Bangalore. It commenced its commercial production in 1972 and set up a refractory plant at Bangalore. They also set up a stevedoring division

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 in the impugned assessment year, considering the land to have been transferred by it, in the relevant previous year. In our opinion, however this cannot help the case of revenue. Just because an erroneous admission of income had been made it would not make the asseessee liable 50 to tax, for the simple reason that the charge

LAHAR SINGH SIROYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

50,000/- and paid tax on the same after claiming benefit of long term capital gains as defined in Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. VIKRAM REDDY

In the result, the fifth substantial question of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

gains" shall be computed, by deducting from the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset the following amounts, namely :— (i) expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer; 19 (ii) the cost of acquisition of the asset and the cost of any improvement thereto: 49. (1) Where

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. HOSAGRAHAR

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

50,000/- and the assessee's share was worked out to Rs.6,90,00,000/- and after claiming cost inflation index and improvement of Rs.13,49,752/- long term capital gain determined at Rs.6,76,02,248/-. Against the long term capital gains, the assessee has claimed exemption under Section

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

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

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 year from the date of purchase

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

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

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 year from the date of purchase

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

50,338/- as a long term capital gain and Rs.4,354/- towards business income. The return was accompanied by the audited balance sheet and profit and loss account. The case was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny, notice under Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI DINESH D RANKA

The appeal is allowed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

gains’. 6. The orders passed by the Assessing Officer as well as the Appellate Commissioner were carried further in appeal by the assessee before the Income Tax Appellate 9 Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in ITA No.1163/Bang/07. The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and set aside the orders passed by the Assessing Officer as well as the Appellate Commissioner

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