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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

Section 55(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, under which, the goodwill amount is taxable.” The technical knowhow is an intangible asset, liable to be taxed under the head ‘Capital Gain

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

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

capital gains income was in fact business income. It is also pointed out that the subject matter in question in EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS supra was Section 26(2) of the Income 10 Tax Act, 1922 and not Section 24(2) of the Act, which is akin to Section 72 of the Act. It is further submitted that the aforesaid decision

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

capital gain is allowable to investment made in residential building and not investment made on land. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing ITA.No.456/2017 - 4 - Officer, the respondent-assessee filed appeal in ITA No.968/R- 8/CIT(A)–V/2011-12 before the Appellate Authority. 3. The Appellate Authority, on appreciation of material on record accepted the contentions of the assessee and observed

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

capital gains] and section 55(2)(b) [relating to cost of acquisition]. 30 Section 45 of the Act provides for how profit

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

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

55,47,800/- 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

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

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

55,47,800/- 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

SHRI. NAVIN JOLLY vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

Section 143(2) of the Act was issued. The assessee stated that he had sold shares in the company viz., M/s 4 Corporate Leisure Resorts and Hotels Pvt. Ltd., during financial year 2005-06 and derived long term capital gain of Rs.1,55

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

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

SRI KAMALL KAILASH CHANDRA SODHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal stands allowed

Bench: VINEET SARAN,A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA

55,444/- was disclosed as income under the head of ‘short term capital gains’. Such income was derived from sale and purchase of shares through a professionally managed company namely, UTI Securities Limited. Initially, the return filed by the petitioner was accepted under section

LATE SMT KRISHNA BAJAJ vs. THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

55,000/-. For the purpose of computation of the capital gain, the assessee took the value of the property as on 1.4.1981 at Rs.2,75,000/-. The Assessing Authority required - - - 3 - the assessee to file the valuation report of the property as on 1.4.1981. Instead of furnishing such report, the assessee filed the computation sheets of net wealth

M/S EMBASSY BRINDAVAN DEVELOPERS vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

capital gains tax. Adverting to Explanation 2(a) of Section 263 of the Act, he contended that jurisdiction under Section 263 could be invoked only in such cases where the order is passed without making inquiries or verification. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd.1, CIT and another Vs. M/s. Cyber Park Development

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

M/S KARLE INTERNATIOAL PRIVATE LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order of the income tax appellate tribunal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Capital gains”, is a loss, the assessee shall be entitled to have the amount of such loss set off against his income from any other source under the same head. (2) Where the result of the computation made for any assessment year under Sections 48 to 55

K R SATYANARAYANA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders passed by the Commissioner of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

capital gains at Rs.19,06,984/- and declared income from other sources at Rs.1,55,438/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and a notice under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M.R.SAMPANGIRAMAIAH

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

capital gains tax, etc., the official figure should be lesser. In a sense, to that extent, it is a case of tax avoidance which is culpable both legally and morally. One cannot gainfully argue that it is a case of tax planning, intent being corrupt. However, that has been done at the instance of the 1st defendant, at whose hands

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

capital gains earned thereon had not been declared for tax. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- was brought to tax. 15. Further at paragraph 8 of the order relating to bogus transportation expenses claimed for the assessment years 2009- 10 and 2010-11, the assessing officer has brought on record that the appellant has claimed transportation expenses