M/S NANDI STEELS LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

disallowed the set off of brought forward business loss and held that set off of brought forward loss against capital gain

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 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 for sale of property at Rs.10,13,45,711/- and income from other sources at Rs.3,85,142/-. The assessee ITA.No.456/2017 - 3 - acquired the property under the Will dated 24.08.1994 executed by her husband who died on 22.02.2006. Subsequently, the assessee obtained probate from the City Civil Judge, Bangalore, under the order dated 30.10.2006. The husband

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. M/S MINITECHS

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

capital gain by disallowing part of cost of acquisition, in our view, cannot lead to concealment and it, at best

GOPAL S. PANDIT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Disallowance of exemption claimed u/s 54B of the I.T.Act. 5.9.2. In the return of income filed, the assessee computed the short term capital gain

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HMA DATA SYSTEMS P LTD.,

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

disallowances to the tune of `2,67,85,610/- was made. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year, assessee sold 50,000 shares of M/s.Diebold HMA Pvt. Ltd., said to have been acquired by it during the year 1992-93 for a total consideration of `21,55,47,800/- and declared a long term capital gain

M/S HMA DATA SYSTEM P LTD., vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

disallowances to the tune of `2,67,85,610/- was made. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year, assessee sold 50,000 shares of M/s.Diebold HMA Pvt. Ltd., said to have been acquired by it during the year 1992-93 for a total consideration of `21,55,47,800/- and declared a long term capital gain

MR.M.GEORGE JOSEPH vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMET TAX OFFICER

In the result, order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Capital Gain of Rs.26,88,34,949/- under Section 54 of the Act in respect of an investment made in acquiring a new residential house property to the extent of Rs.88,98,970/-. The Assessing Officer held that 4 investment made by the assessee does not fall within purview of Section 54F of the Act and disallowed

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

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

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

disallowed the claim of the assessee as that of ‘capital gain’ and ought to have confirmed the income as of ‘business

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

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

disallowed the claim of the assessee as that of ‘capital gain’ and ought to have confirmed the income as of ‘business

SRI Y A SUBRAMANYAM (HUF) vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the impugned order dated

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

capital gains and made certain disallowances. Being aggrieved by the order of assessment, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIT (A) vs. SHRI J KRISHNA PALEMAR

Appeal is allowed;

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

disallowance of claim made under section 54F of the Act by holding that out of five properties held by assessee, three properties cannot be considered as residential properties and as for remaining two properties are concerned, remanded the matter to CIT(A) for fresh decision ignoring that assessee held more than one house other than the new asset

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. SHRI. HOSAGRAHAR

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

capital gains, the assessee has claimed exemption under Section 54F by investment in residential property at New York. The assessee filed his submissions supporting the investments made outside the country. The assessing officer has disallowed

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

capital 6 gains'. The claims for deduction under Section 54F was disallowed. The assessee thereupon approached the Commissioner of Income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GREGORY MATHIAS

Bench: S.N.SATYANARAYANA,JAYANT PATEL

disallow the exemption claimed U/s.54F of Rs,1,72,00,000/-. In response to this, the assessee’s AR vide his 4 letter dated 21.12.2011 stated that the income from house property offered is in respect of stock- in-trade. Hence, the assessee is entitled to deduction U/s.54F. 5.6. The Revenue’s position is that exemption U/s.54F

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