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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

6. Treating such phased allotment of shares as non-compliance with the Proviso clause – (b) of Section 47(xiii) of the Act, the Assessing Authority imposed the Date of Order: 23-07-2018. ITA No.884/2007 c/w ITA No.60/2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s Prakash Electric Company 8/30 capital gains

KIDS CLINIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT

6. Treating such phased allotment of shares as non-compliance with the Proviso clause – (b) of Section 47(xiii) of the Act, the Assessing Authority imposed the Date of Order: 23-07-2018. ITA No.884/2007 c/w ITA No.60/2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s Prakash Electric Company 8/30 capital gains

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ABB LTD

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

gain on sale of technical know-how was capital receipt chargeable to tax under Section 45 of the Act. Learned counsel further argued that the Assessing officer has rightly charged - 6

ANTONY PARAKAL KURIAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

Capital gains amounting to Rs.2,23,47,434/- was claimed as an exemption under Section 54 of the Act and Rs.25 Lakhs is claimed as an exemption for making investment in REC bonds under Section 54EC of the Act. The contention of the appellant 6

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LATE KHOOBCHAND M MAKHIJA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

capital gains, when the Section contemplates exemption in respect of “a” house for the current assessment year? 2. Whether the Tribunal committed an error in holding that the assessee is entitled to the - 6

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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

6 penalty under Section 271(1)(c) and issued demand notice. The assessee being aggrieved by the order of assessment dated 30-03-2001 preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as ‘the First Appellate Authority’) challenging the same on various grounds. The First Appellate Authority after considering the matter in detail held

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS SHAKUNTALA DEVI

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

capital gain of `1,44,68,032/- and had claimed exemption under Section 54 of the Act on the ground that assessee had reinvested said amount for purchasing another property at Mumbai by paying an advance of `1,60,00,000/- as against total value of property at `3,25,00,000/-. Assessing officer has held that agreement to purchase

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

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

6. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue argued that the Tribunal has grossly erred in holding that the guidance value has to be adopted for computing the capital gains when the terms and conditions of the agreement specify the value of consideration. Referring to Section

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

capital gains under Section 45 of the Act, came to surface as the relevant details were only known during the above queries. At the time of original assessment, company and the firm were assessed by two different officers. In the first assessment the - 6

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

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

capital gain is contrary to provisions of law. 4. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the issue with regard to set off, of brought forward business loss and validity of the notice under Section 6

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

6 4. The learned Counsel would vehemently contend that the Tribunal wrongly interpreting the relevant provisions of the Act, reversed the findings of the Authorities while determining the assessment of income to capital gains. It is further contended that, no doubt, sub-section

PR COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX-6 vs. M R KODANDRAM

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,ASHOK S.KINAGI

capital gains, quantifying the sale consideration as the cost of construction of 26% of constructed area and allotted to the assessee as per the JDA dated 11.5.2009 treating the cost of construction as the full value of consideration. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which came to be allowed considering the guidance

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

6. It is vehemently contended that all these statutory obligations that were required to be followed by the assessee in accordance with the Companies Act were followed. The only objection raised by the Income Tax Authorities was that capital gains cannot be directly taken into the account of the capital reserve, first, it has to be included in the profit

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

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? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT PADMAVATHY

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

Section 54EA is concerned. Even though the assessee has not received the sale consideration in cash pursuant to the agreement, she has received six flats as consideration. The sale consideration of three flats was invested in the long 6 term capital gain

GOPAL S. PANDIT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

6. Section 153D of the Act relevant for our purposes is quoted below for ready reference: “153D.: Prior approval necessary for assessment in cases of search or requisition. No order of assessment or reassessment shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year referred to in clause

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

Section 10 (38) of the Act. 6. The assessing authority proposed to bring to tax the gain arising on the sale of the shares as short term capital

P ARVIND MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

gain towards the transaction of transfer of part of its rights in the capital assets of trademark. Reasons recorded by the learned Assessing Officer for the notice dated 03.03.2015 under Section 148 of the Act impugned herein, is verbatim similar to that of the reasons recorded in the first notice dated 03.03.2015 issued under Section