KIDS CLINIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT

capital gains of Rs.1,33,43,710/- to the extent of Rs.51,37,329/- and with interest under Sections 234A and 234B of the Act, a total demand of Rs.93,17,550/- was raised against the Assessee-firm. 7

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: This Bench.

Section 148 was issued on 27.03.2002. In reply to the said notice, the assessee-firm contended that it has paid the amount to the retiring partners standing on credit side in respect of capital accounts. There is no transfer of asset and therefore, they are not liable to pay any capital gains tax. 6. The Assessing Officer held that

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LATE KHOOBCHAND M MAKHIJA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

capital - 7 - gains to be eligible for the benefit under Section 54(1) and (2) of the Act had to be deposited

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

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

capital gain and brought the entire sum of Rs.33.21 Crores received towards non- competition fee and interest as income from other sources. The Tribunal erred in setting aside the addition made by the Assessing Authority with regard to non- competition fee of Rs.30 Crores as revenue receipt, though the same satisfies the ingredients of income as defined under Section

ANTONY PARAKAL KURIAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

7. On a careful reading of section 54 as well as section 54EC on which reliance is placed makes it clear that when capital gains

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS SHAKUNTALA DEVI

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

capital gains portion and as such, it came to be held that assessee was eligible for claiming exemption under Section 54 of the Act. It has been further held by the Tribunal taking of physical possession or for that matter registration of the sale deed would be immaterial. Hence, appeal filed by the assessee came to be allowed by order

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

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

capital gains when the terms and conditions of the agreement specify the value of consideration. Referring to Section 48 of the Act, it was argued that “full value of consideration” has to be interpreted with reference to cost of construction. Section 50C was also referred to. It was agued that Section 50D of the Act which has come into effect

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

Section 45(4) of the Act is attracted and assessee is liable to pay capital gains. 5. Aggrieved by the said order of the assessing authority, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appellate authority confirmed the assessment made but for - 7

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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

7. The Appellate Tribunal on considering the matter in detail allowed the appeal filed by the assessee in part and dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. The appellate Tribunal held that the forfeited amount of a sum of Rs.1.10 crores received by the assessee towards cancellation of agreement of sale is a capital receipt and the same cannot

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

capital gains. It is further contended that, no doubt, sub-section [2] of section 55 of the Act was amended with effect from 1.4.2002 by inserting the words ‘or a trademark or brand name associated with a business’, the transaction involving transfer of goodwill is liable to tax under Section 55(2) of the Act during the relevant assessment year

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

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,ASHOK S.KINAGI

7. These appeals were admitted by this Court to consider the following common substantial question of law; “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the guidance value is to be adopted as consideration for computing capital gain when the terms and conditions of the agreement specify the value of consideration

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

capital gains should be included in the profit and loss account for the purpose of computing book profit. 7. The learned Counsel further places reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ‘C.I.T. Vs. HCL COMNET SYSTEMS AND SERVICES LIMITED’ reported in 2008 [305] ITR 409 and the Judgment of the Calcutta High Court

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

gain arising on transfer of Capital Assets which was acquired by the assessee under a Will, the indexed cost of acquisition has to be computed with reference to the year in which the previous owner first held the assets and not the year in which the assessee became the owner of the assets? ITA.No.456/2017 - 6 - 3. Whether

GOPAL S. PANDIT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

7. Learned Counsel for the Revenue Mr. Jeevan J. Neeralgi, however, has submitted that there being no specific requirement in the provisions of Section 153D of the Act in giving any such opportunity of hearing to the Assessee before granting approval to the Draft Assessment Order to be passed by the lower Assessing Authority, namely, Deputy Commissioner in the present

P VIKRAM 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

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

PROF. P.N. SHETTY vs. OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: The

Gains’ and shall be deemed to be income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. The proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 54F carves 7 out an exception to sub-section (4) of Section 54F of the said Act which deals with two contingencies - (i) where the amount deposited in Capital