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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

price of Rs.50.12/- lakhs did not amount to a transfer and consequently, no capital gains tax was liable to be paid

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

price; and (ii) in any other case [not being a case falling under sub-clauses(i) to (iv) of sub-section(1) of section 49, shall be taken to be nil;” 14. A reading of these provisions would make it clear that any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital

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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

price should not have arisen. The findings of CIT(A) in respect of long term capital gains have not been challenged by the department. Accordingly the loss under capital gain is to be computed by adopting consideration at Rs.0.10 per share.” We find that there is no infirmity in the finding recorded by the Appellate Tribunal. Under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. VIKRAM REDDY

In the result, the fifth substantial question of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

gains" shall be computed, by deducting from the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset the following amounts, namely :— (i) expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer; 19 (ii) the cost of acquisition of the asset and the cost of any improvement thereto: 49. (1) Where

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S IND SING DEVELOPERS P LTD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

price of Rs.150/- sq.ft for the land has been fixed, but land was the capital to be introduced by the 32 assessee for the purpose of endeavor. That assessee had considerable stake, is clear from the fact that asseessee was obliged to offer the land as security for raising loans. Assessee had parted with possession with clear knowledge that

DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri Writ Petition No.11618 Of 2016 (T-It) Between:

Gains chargeable to tax under Section 45 of the Act are, denied to be income. The amounts received on issue of share capital including the premium is undoubtedly on capital account. Share premium have been made taxable by a legal fiction under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act and the same is enumerated as Income in Section

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

price received as a result of the transfer of a capital asset. It is different from ‘fair market value’ of the property, which phrase is used in section 45(2) [relating to capital gains

LAHAR SINGH SIROYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

capital gain which they had earned in pursuance of transfer of their residential property being house no.267, sector 9-C, situated in Chandigarh and used for purchase of a new asset/residential house. 14 11. The facts of the present case are similar, if not on a stronger footing than that in the case of Sanjeev Lal (supra). In the said

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

capital gain based on such sale of immovable property. The assessee is only a share holder in BFSL. It is BFSL who has purchased the immovable property under registered sale deeds. Therefore, assessee is not the owner of the immovable property. However, the assessee has transferred his shares for a valuable consideration of Rs.4,490/- per share. The income derived

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

Bench: The

price of Rs.21,32,470/- on 20th August, 2013 which was before the 3 expiry of three years from the date of transfer of the capital assets. The notice which was the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition filed by the appellant was issued with a view to bring the unutilized capital gains

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. INTEL CAPITAL (CAYMAN) CORPORATION

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

transfer and detention. Sub- Clause (4) of Clause 7 of the scheme reads as under: For the purposes of conversions of Foreign Currency Convertible Bonds, the cost of acquisition in the hands of the non- resident investors would b the conversion price determined on the basis of the price of the shares at the Bombay Stock Exchange, or the National

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

Appeal is allowed

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

Capital gains added by the Assessing Officer is not sustainable. 15. Re-Disallowance of premium on Insurance Policy Rs.3,33,333/- I.T.A No.201/2017 13 Assessee Firm had taken a Insurance Policy on its Partner Shri. Aeranpurwala. The assessee has held that Shri. Aeranpurwala had become a Director of another Company in which the business was carried on. Assessee contended before

CHITTHARANJAN A DASANNACHARYA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

gains' as claimed by the Appellant? ii. The Hon'ble Tribunal was correct in holding that stock options did not constitute a 'capital asset' under Section 2(14) of the Act? iii. The Hon'ble Tribunal was right in concluding that cashless exercise of stock options does not constitute transfer of a long term capital asset under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S. BAGMANE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

transferred to the Assessee Company incurring unnecessary cost, since Raja Bagmane and associates are holding substantial interest in the Assessee Company. Therefore, the basic purpose for the purchase of land by the Assessee company could only be to develop a STPI. After purchasing the Land way back in 1996 and complying with all the initial requirements, the Assessee Company made

M/S BAGMANE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

transferred to the Assessee Company incurring unnecessary cost, since Raja Bagmane and associates are holding substantial interest in the Assessee Company. Therefore, the basic purpose for the purchase of land by the Assessee company could only be to develop a STPI. After purchasing the Land way back in 1996 and complying with all the initial requirements, the Assessee Company made

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

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

gain and it cannot be subjected to tax in any manner under any head of income. It is not liable for tax for the assessment year under consideration in terms of sections 2(24), 28, 45 and 56 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Carbon credits are made available to the assessee on account of saving of energy consumption

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. NUTRINE CONFECTIONERY CO. P. LTD.,

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

capital assets is chargeable to tax in the previous year in which transfer took place. In this case, transfer took - 5 - place on 18.7.1969. The second test which needs to be applied is the test of allocation/attribution. This test is spelt out in the judgment of this Court in Mugneeram Bangur & Co. (Land Department) [1965] 57 ITR 299.. This

THE COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S B V REDDY MARKETING P. LTD

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

capital assets is chargeable to tax in the previous year in which transfer took place. In this case, transfer took place on 18.7.1969. The second test which needs to be applied is the test of allocation/attribution. This test is spelt out in the judgment of this Court in Mugneeram Bangur & Co. (Land Department) [1965] 57 ITR 299.. This test