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

3), not imposing a limitation on the investment in the capital gain bonds, the amendment by Finance Act 2007 to explanation (b) of Section 54EC imposing a limitation of Rs.50 lakhs over the investment, with retrospective effect from 1.4.2006 of which the petitioner had no knowledge, was an extraordinary circumstance which ought to have weighed in the mind W.P.42424/12 7

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: This Bench.

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 existence on 09.01.1985 with Sri Anurag Jain and Sri Nirmal Kumar Dugar as its partners. The firm was engaged in the business

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

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

3] read with Section 254 of the Act holding that the consideration received by the assessee towards the sale of technical know-how was capital in nature as goodwill liable to be taxed under Section 45 of the Act as capital receipt at the value given by the purchaser in its financials. The Assessing Authority further held that non-competition

ANTONY PARAKAL KURIAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

3. During the relevant assessment year, the assessee had sold the land of Angamaly, Kerala [original asset] to M/s. Fashion Jewellery vide sale deed dated 10.04.2012 for a consideration of Rs.60 Lakhs. Long term capital gains resulting from this transaction was claimed as eligible for exemption under Section 54F of the Act. The assessee claimed that on the date

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

3. Explanation (1) to Section 147 of the Act, clearly says that mere production before the assessing officer of accounts books or other evidence from which material - 5 - evidence could with due diligence have been discovered by the assessing officer will not necessarily amounts to disclosure within the meaning of foregoing proviso. Therefore, for the alleged statement with the note

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LATE KHOOBCHAND M MAKHIJA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

3. The Tribunal after considering the rival contentions has upheld the order passed by the Appellate Authority. It is against the said order, the Revenue is in appeal. 4. The substantial questions of law, which arise for consideration in these appeals, are as under: 1. Whether the Tribunal committed an error in holding that the assessee would be entitled

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” 3 3. Facts in brief are: The appellant/company was incorporated on 3.2.1992 with an object to commence business of running a hotel. It transpires that for this purpose, it had purchased a land measuring 2 acres 32 guntas at Mahadevapura through public auction from the appropriate authority of the Income Tax Department

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 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS SHAKUNTALA DEVI

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

3,25,00,000/-. Assessing officer has held that agreement to purchase the said property was 5 entered on 08.09.2003 and between April’ 2003 to September’ 2003 `2,40,00,000/- was paid by the assessee. By assessment order dated 31.12.2007 – Annexure – C assessing officer held that sale transaction had not been concluded, no registration of sale deed had taken

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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

3. The assessee filed return of income on 31-10-2001 declaring a total loss of Rs.3,68,30,330/-. But determined the tax payable under Section 115JB at Rs.38,26,607/-. 4. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) was issued on 25-10-2002. The authorized representative of the assessee appeared on behalf

M/S. THE KOLAR & CHICKBALLAPUR vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 8. Section 80 of the Act reads thus: “80. Submission of return for losses.—Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, no loss which has not been determined in pursuance of a return filed [in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of section

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

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

3. The respondent – assessee is an individual deriving managerial remuneration from M/s PVS Beedies (P) Ltd. The assessee filed return of income for the assessment year under consideration declaring the total income of Rs.28,39,420/- and subsequently filed revised return of income declaring the income of Rs.1,02,10,700/- including an additional income of Rs.73

SRI B V ACHARYA S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA ACHARYA vs. SRI N VENKATESHAIAH

Bench: V.JAGANNATHAN

capitation fee issue is concerned, the 18 submission made is that the writ petition filed in this regard by the students came to be dismissed by this court. Therefore, none of the offences alleged in the complaint can be said to have been, even remotely, made out against the petitioner and thus, it is clear that the entire complaint

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 147 of the Act; the assessment

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

3. Learned Counsel Sri. K.V. Aravind, appearing for the Revenue, would contend that section 48 of the Act would contemplate mode of computation for the income chargeable under the head ‘capital gains’. The same is computed by deducting from the full value of consideration: [a] cost incurred in connection with transfer of the capital asset [b] cost of acquisition

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

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,ASHOK S.KINAGI

3. The assessing officer completed the assessment by computing the long term 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

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

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