ANTONY PARAKAL KURIAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

capital gains from sale of land amounting to Rs.49,08,708/-. 4. The appellant sold a residential house at Angamaly, Kerala i.e., House property

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS SHAKUNTALA DEVI

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

gain arises from the transfer of a long-term capital asset, being buildings or lands appurtenant thereto, and being a residential house, the income of which is chargeable under the head “Income from house property

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

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

house property. D.- Profits and gains of business or profession. E.- Capital gains. F.- Income from other sources. A.- 15 Salaries

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

capital gain tax. In the light of the aforesaid undisputed facts, the question arises for consideration is: Whether the transfer of shares by the assessee in M/s.BFSL within effect would have the effect of M/s.DLFCDL which acquire the lands becoming entitled to the immovable property to the extent of 15 acres is a colorable device to avoid payment of income

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

property. Otherwise, if the date of inheritance is taken into consideration, then the cost of acquisition of the asset on that date corresponding to the market value is to be taken into consideration. Otherwise, take the cost of acquisition on the day the previous owner acquired it and apply the “Indexed Cost of Acquisition” and then calculate the capital gains

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

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

Property Developer, the Assessee file a revised computation of total income offering capital gain to tax and also paid taxes due thereon. We have already found that the explanation offered by the Assessee for not offering the capital gain in the original return of income as bonafide explanation. In the circumstances, we are of the view that

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

house property, transport business, capital gains and other sources. For the assessment year 2004-05, he 3 filed his Income

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

In the result, order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Capital Gains. The assessee filed return of income on 31.07.2009 for the Assessment Year 2009-10 and declared total income of Rs.28,39,63,455/- and claimed exemption under Section 54F of the Act to the extent of Rs.88,98,970/- on account of acquisition of a new residential house property

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

GOPAL S. PANDIT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Property treating the same as capital asset and claimed exemption u/s 54B of the I.T.Act. The assessee also in his letter dated 03.05.2010 pleaded that he is eligible for exemption u/s 54B of the I.T.Act as he has invested the capital gain from sale of land used for Agricultural purposes for purchase of any other land for being used

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GREGORY MATHIAS

Bench: S.N.SATYANARAYANA,JAYANT PATEL

property’ because of the specific provisions of Section 22 of the Act read with Sec.14 of the Act. Such treatment of income by the assessee cannot be treated as an act by which the assessee has considered the seven flats as residential house owned by him. We are, therefore, of the view that denial of the claim of the assessee

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT PADMAVATHY

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

capital gains arising from the transfer of a residential house are exempt from Income Tax subject to reinvestment in acquiring a residential house within two years. The records disclose that the joint development agreement was entered into between the parties in the year 1994, the property

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

capital gains. v) If there was no AOP what was the date of transfer of subject property to M/s. Parkway Developments Pvt. Ltd., ie, whether such transfer was a) AT the time of MOU? b) At the time of principle agreement? c) At the time of settlement deed? 4 d) At the time of execution of conveyance deed? 17. Taking

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

Appeal is allowed;

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

house property”, other than the new asset. - 11 - ITA No. 546/2018 Explanation.- For the purpose of this section,- (i) “long-term capital asset” means a capital asset which is not a short-term capital asset; (ii) “net consideration”, in relation to the transfer of a capital asset, means the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result

ARUN K THIAGARAJAN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order passed by the assessing officer and

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

gain arises from the transfer of a long-term capital asset, being buildings or lands appurtenant thereto, and being a residential house, the income of which is chargeable under the head “Income from house property

SHRI. NAVIN JOLLY vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

capital gain of Rs.1,55,47,315/-. The appellant further declared that he had constructed a residential property during the year situate at 808/7 and 808/8 Kaikondanahalli, Sarjapur, Bangalore. The appellant claimed exemption under Section 54F of the Act to the extent of Rs.1,55,47,315/-. Before the assessing officer, the assessee agreed voluntarily to offer

PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI T V VENUGOPAL

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

house property income meaning thereby part of the investment has been accepted by the Assessing Officer as an investment. The assessee had retained the asset i.e., plot of land for more than 15 years. It indicate that he has the intention to keep the asset for earning long term capital gain

PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI T V VENUGOPAL

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

house property income meaning thereby part of the investment has been accepted by the Assessing Officer as an investment. The assessee had retained the asset i.e., plot of land for more than 15 years. It indicate that he has the intention to keep the asset for earning long term capital gain