ANTONY PARAKAL KURIAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

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 of sale of land i.e., 10.04.2012, he was the owner of only one residential house at Angamaly, Kerala; prior to 10.04.2012, the appellant invested in a residential house – Flat No.3E, 3rd Floor

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

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI D M PURNESH

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowance to the extent of Rs.24,60,000/- when the assessing authority has done the same considering the share of assessee being 1/3rd of total profit and after allowing the applicable costs? iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the computation of long term capital gain

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

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

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

Appeal is allowed

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

long term Capital gains Tax. We have held that the plot belonged to the Partner Shri. Aeranpurwala. By logical corollary, the building thereon, also must belong to him. Hence, the short term Capital gains added by the Assessing Officer is not sustainable. 15. Re-Disallowance

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

In the result, order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Long Term 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

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

long term capital gain as the stock options were held nearly for ten years. The assessee also claimed deduction under Section 54F of the Act. 3. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 26.12.2018 passed an order under Section 143(3) of the Act and artificially split the transaction into two and brought to tax the difference between the market

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. HOSAGRAHAR

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

long term 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

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

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

long term capital loss and same has been taxed as short term capital gains. Notices under Section 143(2) / 142(1) of the Act were issued to the Assessee an order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 28.02.2005 disallowing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

long-term capital loss of Rs.1,24,03,271/-. Consequently, he also set aside the order passed by the Assessing Authority insofar as the interest is concerned. Aggrieved by this order, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has dealt with the respective issues as contended by the Assessing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

long-term capital loss of Rs.1,24,03,271/-. Consequently, he also set aside the order passed by the Assessing Authority insofar as the interest is concerned. Aggrieved by this order, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has dealt with the respective issues as contended by the Assessing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA, M/S BELLARY STEEL ROLING MILLS,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

long-term capital loss of Rs.1,24,03,271/-. Consequently, he also set aside the order passed by the Assessing Authority insofar as the interest is concerned. Aggrieved by this order, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has dealt with the respective issues as contended by the Assessing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA, M/S BELLARY STEEL ROLING MILLS,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

long-term capital loss of Rs.1,24,03,271/-. Consequently, he also set aside the order passed by the Assessing Authority insofar as the interest is concerned. Aggrieved by this order, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has dealt with the respective issues as contended by the Assessing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

long-term capital loss of Rs.1,24,03,271/-. Consequently, he also set aside the order passed by the Assessing Authority insofar as the interest is concerned. Aggrieved by this order, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has dealt with the respective issues as contended by the Assessing

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