THE PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MPHASIS LIMITED

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

term capital 14 gain or short term capital loss and thus the claims registered are bogus. It appears

LAHAR SINGH SIROYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

short term capital gains, instead of long term capital gains as had been claimed by the assessee

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

terms of the notification dt. 22.12.2006, in the capital gains band, being the limit set out in the said notifications. 11. It is in this backdrop of facts that petitioner claims to have not paid the tax of Rs.29,09,800/- and W.P.42424/12 18 did so only on 25.09.2007 Annexure – K after the amendment to explanation

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S SUBHASH KABINI POWER CORPORATION LIMITED

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

term capital gain and according to him, it should have been treated as short term capital gain

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GMR HOLDINGS PVT LTD.,

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

capital gains’, whether short term capital gain or long term capital gain. The said

M/S. EVERGREEN HARDWARE STORES vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

Appeal is allowed

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

short term capital gains in respect of the building at Audugodi on the facts and circumstances of the case

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS SHAKUNTALA DEVI

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

short ‘Act’) as assessee had fulfilled all the conditions prescribed under said section. 2. Facts in brief which has led to filing of this second appeal by the revenue can be crystlised as under: For the assessment year 2003-04 a return of income came to be filed by the assessee on 17.07.2003 4 declaring her total income

ANTONY PARAKAL KURIAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

short) relating to the assessment year 2013-14 raising the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, the Tribunal was correct in law in remanding the matter to CIT (A) to decide eligibility of exemption under Section 54 in respect of repayment of housing loan of Rs.60 lakhs

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S SYNDICATE BANK

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

short term capital gain against long term capital loss was not permissible under Section 70(3) of the Act. An order

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

Appeal stands allowed

Bench: VINEET SARAN,A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA

short term capital gains’. Such income was derived from sale and purchase of shares through a professionally managed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LATE KHOOBCHAND M MAKHIJA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

short hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in respect of two residential houses purchased and also holding that the assessee is entitled to the exemption under Section 54(2) of the Act, to the extent of unutilized deposit in the capital gain account as claimed by them. 2. The assessee filed a return of income for the assessment

P ARVIND MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

short] relating to the assessment years 2008-09. 2. The petitioner filed the return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 declaring the total income of Rs.1,84,03,401/- which includes the income from the capital gain offered by the assessee, Rs.1,50,00,000/- after claiming the applicable exemptions against the receipt of consideration

P VIKRAM MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

short] relating to the assessment years 2008-09. 2. The petitioner filed the return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 declaring the total income of Rs.1,83,08,077/- which includes the income from the capital gain offered by the assessee, Rs.1,50,00,000/- after claiming the applicable exemptions against the receipt of consideration

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

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

short) in ITA No.989/Bang/2014 relating to the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. This appeal was admitted by this Court to consider the following substantial question of law; - 3 - “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the guidance value is the sale consideration for computing capital gain

SRI.S.K.RAVIKUMAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath & The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice K.Natarajan Income Tax Appeal No.82 Of 2010

term capital gains in respect of the land and short term capital gains in respect of the building

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT PADMAVATHY

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

short) in ITA No.14/W6(3) CIT(A) III/2002-03 for the assessment year 1999-2000. 3 2. The respondent-assessee filed return of income on 28-06-1999 for the assessment year 1999-2000 declaring the income of Rs.4,66,200/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised returns on 11-11-1999 declaring the income of Rs.13,83,616/-. The income declared

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

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

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

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,ASHOK S.KINAGI

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 of Income Tax (Appeals), which came to be allowed