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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

long-term capital gains arising on sale of shares under Section 10(38) of the Act. Therefore, they recorded a finding that it is a case of colourable device to evade payment of taxation on short-term capital gains. Therefore, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax. It is against the said

PR COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX-6 vs. M R KODANDRAM

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,ASHOK S.KINAGI

long term capital gains, quantifying the sale consideration as the cost of construction of 26% of constructed area and allotted to the assessee as per the JDA dated 11.5.2009 treating the cost of construction as the full value of consideration. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which came to be allowed considering

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

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

long term capital gain and short term capital gain separately. But the Tribunal ultimately arrived at a conclusion that even if this exercise is being done, then there will not be any tax liability and therefore, there is no need to set aside the assessment order. The Hon’ble High Court has upheld this finding of the Tribunal

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 of premium on Insurance Policy Rs.3,33,333/- I.T.A No.201/2017 13 Assessee Firm had taken

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 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

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

Long-term capital gain realized from the transfer of FCBBs or shares to a resident would be liable to tax in India at 10 percent. 16. In light of the amendment to section 115AC of the Act, clause (x) of Section 47 was amended simultaneously to include "bonds" to address the taxability 11 arising from the conversion into equity shares

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

term capital asset, for which a fair market value was adopted at Rs.225/- per sq.ft. and offered the capital gains for taxation after availing the benefit of indexation. After reopening of the case, the Assessing Officer adopted fair market value at Rs.84/- per sq.ft. and computed the capital gains, and also disallowed 50% of expenses on transfer claimed

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 accruing to beneficiaries which led to tax demands and with a questionable going concern status of the assessee, the issue had tax implications. Thus, respondent intended to revise order of AO and issued notice under Section 263 of Act 1961. 6 5. Petitioner feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied of the notice dated 08.02.2016 issued under Section

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

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

long term capital gains sustainable under Section 65 of the Act? 4. The Apex Court in the case of PNB Finance Ltd. V/s. Commissioner of Income-Tax reported in (2008) 307 ITR 75(SC) has held as under: “17. As regards applicability of Section 45 is concerned, three tests are required to be applied. In this case, Section 45 applies

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

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

long-term capital gains Rs.1 crore that is received as good will. The claim of the assessee was, the remaining Rs.22.05 crores was received in the nature of capital and hence, could not be subjected to tax. The Assessing authority did not agree with the stand of the assessee. It treated the entire consideration towards good will that the assessee

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

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

gain of Rs.235.85 crores in the hands of the Company on selling of shares of M/s.Jupiter Capital Private Limited to Mr.M.K.Chandrashekhar father of Mr.Rajeev Chandrashekar, the major share holder of the Company. The Company sold its shares of M/s.Jupiter Capital Private Limited to Mr.M.K.Chandrashekhar, at the price of Rs.36.04 crores. He held the shares only for a day and sold

M/S SRI BALAJI CORPORATE SERVICES vs. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

Price Advisory Committee which has been approved by the Board in its 356th meeting held on 20.09.2018, that the compensation shall be awarded at Rs.50 Lakhs per acre on consent and if the land owners are not agreeable for such consent awards, the award shall be made in accordance with law. The Board has filed objections to the said application

L. VENKATARAMANA RAJU vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

Price Advisory Committee which has been approved by the Board in its 356th meeting held on 20.09.2018, that the compensation shall be awarded at Rs.50 Lakhs per acre on consent and if the land owners are not agreeable for such consent awards, the award shall be made in accordance with law. The Board has filed objections to the said application

M/S FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

transfer of the reserves and surplus to the holding company by avoiding the payment of tax and therefore it will be treated as a colourable device. There are two aspects in this transaction- (i) It is a simple and plain transaction of buy back of shares without having any dispute of price then the same is beyond the scope

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M.R.SAMPANGIRAMAIAH

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

capital gains tax, etc., the official figure should be lesser. In a sense, to that extent, it is a case of tax avoidance which is culpable both legally and morally. One cannot gainfully argue that it is a case of tax planning, intent being corrupt. However, that has been done at the instance of the 1st defendant, at whose hands

R JANARDHANA BABU vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. Veerappa

price of the share was Rs.600 per share. He further contended that apart from coercion, physical threat and pressure the workmen including female were tortured day in and day out by the management and they were also humiliated. Under those circumstances, the workmen were compelled to sign at the dotted line. The inaction on the part of the management

M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

price of the raw-material. If the MODVAT credit is availed by the assessee at the time of sale of finished products to that extent, he would be entitled to deduction. If MODVAT credit still remain unavailed, it is to be added to the closing balance and that has to be taken into consideration in deciding the profit earned