KIDS CLINIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT

Sections 234A and 234B of the Act, a total demand of Rs.93,17,550/- was raised against the Assessee-firm. 7. The First Appellate Authority viz., CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the Assessee and upheld the levy of capital gains tax on the partnership firm. 8

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: This Bench.

capital gains tax there should be an asset and there should be transfer in respect of that asset. The word ‘transfer’ is defined in Section 2(47) of the I.T. Act. As per this definition, transfer includes sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset. It also includes extinguishment of any rights in the asset. Hence to complete 8

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

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

capital gain” under Section 45 of the Act. 8. Learned counsel submitted that the assessing officer has failed to comply

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 was that out of the advance amount of Rs.50 lakhs received from M/s. Fashion Jewellery

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LATE KHOOBCHAND M MAKHIJA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

capital gain for tax for the assessment year 1999-2000? 7. The argument of the Revenue is that, in terms of Section 54(1) of the Act, if the assessee has within a period of - 8

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

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

Section 45 of the Act reads thus: “Capital gains. 45. (1) Any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save as otherwise - 8

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

Section 2(47) of the Act and therefore, the assessee is not liable to pay any - 8 - capital gains. Accordingly

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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

8. The present appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the sum of Rs.1,10,000/- forfeited out of payment received from Rallis India Ltd is to be treated as capital receipt subject to the adjustment under section 51 of the Act and should be excluded

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

gains cannot be directly taken into the account of the capital reserve, first, it has to be included in the profit and loss account for the purpose of computing book profit under Section 115JB of the Act. The Act provides that income prepared in accordance with the Companies Act shall be ‘deemed income’ for the purpose of Section 115JB

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

section 48 specify the “full value of consideration” as received or accrued to the seller?” 8. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue argued that the Tribunal has grossly erred in holding - 8 - that the guidance value has to be adopted for computing the 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. It is also argued that the business loss claimed to be set off by the assessee, was carried 12 forward business loss of the earlier years and the same can be set off only in terms of Section 72 of the Act, which permits only set off of business loss against the profits and gains of business

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 gains and the tax payable. That is precisely what has been held by the Bombay High Court in the aforesaid Judgment which in our view is the correct legal decision.” 8. The next contention urged by the appellants-revenue is that the Tribunal has erred in allowing the claim of the assessee under Section

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 gain on sale of the immovable property by holding that the transaction was virtually for sale of the immovable property to DLFCDL and the sale of shares was only a devise

GOPAL S. PANDIT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

8. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the internal guidelines issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, as urged by the learned Counsel for the Assessee, bereft of the statutory provisions in Section 153D of the Act cannot bind the approving Authority, namely, the Joint Commissioner to comply with the principles of natural

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