THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. GRACY BABU,

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

45, it cannot be taxed at all. (See S. G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd. v. CIT (1972) 83 1TR 700 (SC). (17) Furthermore, it would be illogical and against the language of section 56 to hold that everything that is exempted from capital gains by the statute could be taxed as a casual or non-recurring receipt under section

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS,

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

45, it cannot be taxed at all. (See S. G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd. v. CIT (1972) 83 1TR 700 (SC). (17) Furthermore, it would be illogical and against the language of section 56 to hold that everything that is exempted from capital gains by the statute could be taxed as a casual or non-recurring receipt under section

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

45, it cannot be taxed at all. (See S. G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd. v. CIT (1972) 83 1TR 700 (SC). (17) Furthermore, it would be illogical and against the language of section 56 to hold that everything that is exempted from capital gains by the statute could be taxed as a casual or non-recurring receipt under section

A.T.SHERIFF vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

gains under section 45 of the Act arises only when there is a transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year. The word 'transfer' is defined in section 2(47) of the Act as encompassing six different types of transactions. The relevant transaction for the present case referred to in the said definition provision is the fifth clause

M/S. APPOLO TYRES LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

4 (2014) 367 ITR 261 (Guj.) I.T.A. No.216/2013 -10- capital assets and the sale was subjected to STT; secondly, sale of land held for more than three years and is in the nature of long term capital gain. The sources now clubbed together are distinct and separate. The first source, namely income from the sale of shares/units in mutual funds

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOCHI vs. M/S.COCHIN MALABAR ESTATES & INDUSTRIES LTD.

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

capital gains is per se illegal. He relies on the judgments reported in Ms Srinivasa Naicker v. Income Tax Officer6; and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 4, Chennai v. M/s. Mansi Finance Chennai Ltd7 for the proposition that the judgment relied on by the Revenue is considered by the Madras High Court and it has been finally held that

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also for the reasons highlighted in paragraph 5(a) to (f) of ITA Nos.757/2009 and batch cases 18 the statement of the case the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that “there is nothing on record to show that the assessee had no present

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. PTL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also for the reasons highlighted in paragraph 5(a) to (f) of ITA Nos.757/2009 and batch cases 18 the statement of the case the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that “there is nothing on record to show that the assessee had no present

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also for the reasons highlighted in paragraph 5(a) to (f) of ITA Nos.757/2009 and batch cases 18 the statement of the case the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that “there is nothing on record to show that the assessee had no present