M/S.R.S.RANGADAS vs. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are disposed of, with no order as to costs

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

capital gains from transfer/sale of one lakh equity shares of NIIT would be assessable in the AY 1999-2000 and accordingly claim for deduction under Section 54F would be considered in the said year. Total taxable income was assessed at Rs.2,38,02,380/- on ITA Nos. 405/2005, 406/2005 & 389/2007 Page 4 of 26 account of certain additions

The Commissioner of Income Tax III, vs. M/s. Swagath Seeds Private Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

additions such as income from joint development of sites, long term capital gains on transfer of land, income declared under

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5 vs. M/s Vijay Textiles Limited

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

income is not taxable in the hands of the members. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the addition of Rs.14 Crore made under the head of capital gain

V.C. NANNAPANENI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

gain”. 3. The appellant as well as the company filed separate appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who dismissed the same confirming the orders of the AO. Aggrieved by those orders, the assessee has filed two appeals ITA Nos.642 and 782/Hyd/2002 for the assessment year 1998- 99 and 1999-2000 respectively, and the company filed ITA No.361/Hyd/2003

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Sri Anand Prakash Sanghi

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

addition of Rs.1,87,00,000/- as being concealed income under 'short-term capital gain'. The assessee, which was a partnership

The Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. G Pulla Reddy Chritable Trust

In the result, the orders passed by the Commissioner of

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 2 "SHILPASHREE", VIDYARANYA COMPLEX VISHWESWARANAGAR, MYSURU. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-2(1), "SHILPASHREE" VIDYARANYA COMPLEX VISHWESWARANAGAR, MYSURU. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 28.11.2014 PASSED IN ITA 2 NO.269/BANG/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR

Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur. vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Kangiri.

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

gains;] Chapter III contains provisions which deal with incomes which do not form part of total income for the purpose of levy of income tax. As of now, there are fourteen (14) sections. These can be conveniently grouped into four categories. Section 10 enumerates incomes from various sources of various institutions and persons which shall not be included in computing

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

gains;] Chapter III contains provisions which deal with incomes which do not form part of total income for the purpose of levy of income tax. As of now, there are fourteen (14) sections. These can be conveniently grouped into four categories. Section 10 enumerates incomes from various sources of various institutions and persons which shall not be included in computing

K.V.D.PRASAD RAO vs. THE JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

addition to the above facts on Supreme C-oun's decision in the c;rse of CIT Vs. Narang Diary Products (2 1') J IR 478) wher-ein the word 'transfer' has been c'leiLned to include 'ito make over possession of propem' to another, to hand over'. Hence, capital gains are ta-xable in the hands

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S Gulf Oil Corporation Pvt. Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gain. 8.5. The   assessee,   being   aggrieved   and  dissatisfied with the assessment order, filed  Page 5 of 41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT an appeal before the CIT (A) contending that  the entire loss has wrongly been denied to be  set   off   against   the   other   incomes   of   the  assessee.   The   assessee   made   several  submissions before the CIT (A). The CIT (A)  thereafter  allowed

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Jayalakshmi Chits

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gain. 8.5. The   assessee,   being   aggrieved   and  dissatisfied with the assessment order, filed  Page 5 of 41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT an appeal before the CIT (A) contending that  the entire loss has wrongly been denied to be  set   off   against   the   other   incomes   of   the  assessee.   The   assessee   made   several  submissions before the CIT (A). The CIT (A)  thereafter  allowed

The Commissioner of Income Tax - VI vs. M/s. Manikanta Iron AND Hardware

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gain. 8.5. The   assessee,   being   aggrieved   and  dissatisfied with the assessment order, filed  Page 5 of 41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT an appeal before the CIT (A) contending that  the entire loss has wrongly been denied to be  set   off   against   the   other   incomes   of   the  assessee.   The   assessee   made   several  submissions before the CIT (A). The CIT (A)  thereafter  allowed

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), vs. M/s. Vipanchi Chit Fund Ltd.,

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

addition of the said sum of ` 3,07,82,342/- by holding it as profit on sale of land which was taxable under the head ‘profits and gains of business or profession’ and not by way of capital gains. The Commissioner of Income

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s Matrix Power Pvt Ltd.,

capital gains). Under section 72, a provision has been made for carry forward and setting off of a loss sustained against the head of profits and gains of business or profession. Under section 72, where a loss which has been sustained under the head of profits and gains of business or profession cannot be set-off against income under

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Sri Anil Harnathka

Bench: The Tribunal & The Tribunal On The Ground Of The Assessee'S Mother Having Filed A Return Conceding Capital Gains, Set Aside The Addition Of Rs.60 Lakhs As Against The Assessee. By Annexure-A, The Assessment Of The Assessee Was Completed Taking As Undisclosed Income, Various Credits In The Bank Account Between 08.08.2005 & 23.11.2005. Out Of The Total Amount Of Rs.98,18,244/-, Rs.60,00,000/- According To The Assessee Represented The Unaccounted Receipt On The Sale Of The Property By His Mother. The Property Is Said To Have Actually Fetched Rs.74,00,000/- & The Mother, The Owner Of

income conceding a capital gain on a property, the sale of which resulted in the deposit of Rs.60 lakhs in the bank account of the assessee? 2. The assessee was in appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal on the ground of the assessee's mother having filed a return conceding capital gains, set aside the addition

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. V.Ramachandra Rao

In the result, we do not find any merit in the

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

capital gains. According to the assessee the aforesaid sum was an expenditure incurred by the assessee wholly and exclusively in connection with transfer as contemplated under Section 48(i) of the Act. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 30.11.2011 disallowed an amount of Rs.50 Lakhs from out of the deduction of Rs.1 Crore claimed under Section 54EC

The Commissioner of Income Tax - IV vs. M/s. Mekins Agro Product (P) Ltd.

gains, or other sources, the word 'income' should be understood in its commercial sense, i.e., book income, after adding back any appropriations or applications thereof towards the purpose of the trust or otherwise, and also after adding back any debits made for capital expenditure incurred for the purposes of the trust or otherwise.lt should be noted, in this connection, that

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/S.B.KRISHNA MURTHY KAKINADA AND 2 ORS

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

capital gain within Article 13 rather than royalties within Article 12. That follows from the fact that where the ownership of rights has been alienated, the consideration cannot be for the use of the rights. The essential character of the transaction as an alienation cannot be altered by the form of the consideration, the ITA Nos. 93/2002 & 120/2008 Page