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

54 EC of the Act as it stood before insertion of the Proviso by Finance Act 2007 w.e.f. 01.04.2007, provides that if the cost of the long-term specified asset is less than the capital gain arising from the transfer of the original asset, so much of the capital gain as bears to the whole of the capital gain

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS SHAKUNTALA DEVI

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

capital gain to tax. Section 54 of the Act which provides for claiming exemption reads as under: “54. (1) Subject to the provision of sub- section (2

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: This Bench.

sections [***] [54, 54B, [***] [ [54D, [54E, [54EA, 54EB,] 54F [, 54G and 54H]]]]], be chargeable to income tax under the head “Capital gains”, and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. xxx xxx xxx (2

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable Tribunal is right in law in stating that the Respondent has failed to satisfy the condition under section 47(xiii)(b) although the shares in the successor company have been allotted in the ratio of capital accounts as stood in the books of the firm

KIDS CLINIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT

2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable Tribunal is right in law in stating that the Respondent has failed to satisfy the condition under section 47(xiii)(b) although the shares in the successor company have been allotted in the ratio of capital accounts as stood in the books of the firm

M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE UNION OF INDIA REPTD BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri W.P. No.26037/2005 C/W W.P.No.4464/2007 & W.P.No.27087/2005(It)

54 KHANDIGE SHAM BHAT & OTHERS Vs AGRICULTURAL INCOME-TAX OFFICER, KASARAGOD reported in 1963 AIR 591, it was held that there is no violative of Article 14 in treating pending cases as a class different from decided cases. 22. In view of the inherent complexity of fiscal adjustment of diverse elements, a wider discretion is vested in the revenue

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

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

2) Where any building, machinery, plant or furniture,— (a) which is owned by the assessee; (b) in respect of which depreciation is claimed under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 32; and (c) which was or has been used for the purposes of business, is sold, discarded, demolished or destroyed and the moneys payable in respect of such

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

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

54, 54B, 54D, 54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54H shall be chargeable to income tax under the head capital gains and by legal fiction it is deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. The mode of computation as prescribed under Section 48 would indicate that the income chargeable under the head

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

54, 54B, 54D, 54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54H be chargeable to income-tax under the head “Capital gains” and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place.” 17 12. Section 48 of the Act reads thus: “48. Mode of Computation The income chargeable under the head “Capital gains” shall

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 WEALTH TAX-6 vs. M R KODANDRAM

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,ASHOK S.KINAGI

54, 54B, - 12 - 54D, 54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54H shall be chargeable to income tax under the head capital gains and by legal fiction it is deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. The mode of computation as prescribed under Section 48 would indicate that the income chargeable under

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

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 - 8 - the cost of any improvement of the assets incurred or borne by the previous owner

ARUN K THIAGARAJAN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order passed by the assessing officer and

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

54(1) Subject to the provisions of sub- Section (2), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, the capital gain

LAHAR SINGH SIROYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

2(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

JAI JINENDRA CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKARI NIYAMIT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

In the result, the above questions are answered in favour

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY,S.SUJATHA

54 years, Occupation: Service, Resident of Shamnewadi, Taluk: Chikodi, Belgaum. ... APPELLANT. (By Shri Sangram S. Kulkarni, Advocate) AND 1. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), 3rd Floor, Phiroz Khimji Complex, 2 Opposite to Civil Hospital, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Belgaum-590 001. 2. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Opposite Civil Hospital, Nipani-590 001. ... RESPONDENTS. (By Shri: Y V Raviraj

SREE RENUKA CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, the above questions are answered in favour

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY,S.SUJATHA

54 years, Occupation: Service, Resident of Shamnewadi, Taluk: Chikodi, Belgaum. ... APPELLANT. (By Shri: Sangram S. Kulkarni, Advocate) AND 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), 3rd Floor, 2 Piroz Khimji Complex, Opposite to Civil Hospital, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Belgaum-590 001. 2. The Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Opposite to Civil Hospital, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Nipani, Nipani

DR(SMT) SUJATHA RAMESH vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

Bench: The Hon'Ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari

2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, refusing to condone the delay of about six months in making the eligible investment in the Infrastructure Bonds in terms of Section 54 EC of the Act, to claim exemption from Capital Gain

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

2(47)(v) of the IT Act in its entirety. 8.1 Though the JDA contains a clause stating that the possession delivered shall not be construed as possession within the meaning of Section 53A of the TP Act, there are - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7442-DB ITA No. 637 of 2016 other clauses which confer irrevocable licence