M/S. VJIL CONSULTING LTD., vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -3(2), HYDERABAD

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,S.CHALAPATHI RAO

capital gain should be included for the purpose of computing Book Profit under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” 3 3. Facts in brief are: The appellant/company was incorporated on 3.2.1992 with an object to commence business

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

business expenditure.” 7. The AO further observed that enquiries had been made with some of flat owners to ascertain the treatment they had given to the said receipt of compensation in their books of accounts and income tax returns. All of them had shown the amount received from the Assessee as capital gains

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMEE TAX-III vs. M/S.V.B.C.FERRO ALLOYS LTD

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

income bg uag of diuidends, interest or long-term capital gains of an infrastntcture capital fund or an infrastructure capital compang from inuestments made before the 7"t daA of June, 1998 bg utay of shares or long-terrn finance in ang enterprise carrying on th.e business

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the addition of ` 3,07,82,342/- by holding that profits from the sale of lands is not taxable under the head profits and gains of business or profession vis-à-vis capital

Kuchipudi Krishna Kishore vs. The DCIT

Accordingly the appeals deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

gain controiling interest. For that cause he had taken loan and the payment of interest, is for continuance of the business. Thus, the factual position is establishing that the interest has been paid by the assessee towards the capital borrowed investment for the prospect of business. ln addition though inconsequential for avairing benefit under this provision it has been substantiated

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. GLAND PHARMA LTD.,

In the result, the appeal (ITAT/96/2017) fails and stands

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Income Tax (Appeals) in holding that sale of factory land at Guindy, Chennai gave rise to capital gains and not business

SMT. SHANTHA VIDYASAGAR ANNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2) HYDERABAD

In the result, the orders dated 09

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

gain accrued to the assessee in order to attra(:t Sections 45 and Section 4g of the Act. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decision of thr: Supreme Court in Seshasayee Steels private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai r and decisions on Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata_l vs. Infinity Infotech

M/S.P.SATYANARAYANA AND SONS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1[9], HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

business or profession carried on by such person in India or for the purposes of making or earning any income from any source in India: Provided that nothing contained in this clause shall apply in relation to so much of the income by way of royalty as consists of lump sum consideration for the transfer outside India

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s. Sanghi Textiles Limited

The appeal is allowed setting aside

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

business of the assessee more profitably or more successfully, and when the company gains advantage by the spending of the said amount, it should be looked upon as revenue receipt and not capital receipt. 12. Learned senior standing counsel has also placed reliance on the case of commtssioner of Income

AVANTI FEEDS LTD., vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX

The appeal is dismissed, and the stay petition

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

Gain or Loss? iii. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal was justified in law to set aside the order of CIT(A) by allowing the appeal of the assessee by ignoring the ratio laid down by the jurisdiction High Court in the case of Swati Bajaj reported in [2022] 139 taxmann.com

M/s Durga Granites, vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1,

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Business, Having its registered office at Haridanga Bazar, P.O. + P.S. Pakur, Dist- Pakur (Jharkhand) and Permanent Resident of 4 Andul Raj Road, PO-Southern Market, PS-Kalighat. Kolkata- 700026, West Bengal. ..........Petitioner. -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Secretary, Department of Industries, Mines and Geology, having its office at Yojna Bhawan, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand