KIDS CLINIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT

234A and 234B of the Act, a total demand of Rs.93,17,550/- was raised against the Assessee-firm. 7. The First Appellate Authority viz., CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the Assessee and upheld the levy of capital gains tax on the partnership firm. 8. The Assessee firm preferred the second appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

SHRI N G CHANDRA REDDY (HUF) vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

234A, 234B and 234C of the Act, 1961 on the facts and circumstance of the case." 3. The brief facts are that the assessee, a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2005–06. In the said return, the assessee did not disclose the capital gains arising from the transfer of an asset pursuant