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

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 of deueloping, maintaining and operating ang infrastructure facilitg shalL not be included and the prouisions of this clause as it stood immediately before

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, HYD vs. M/S. SUJANA METALS LTD, HYD

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest? A.K. SIKRI, J. (ORAL) 1. Present appeal is filed under Section 260 (A) (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA ITA NO.541/2015 BETWEEN 1. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C. R. BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 11(4) BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI FOR SRI. E. I. SANMATHI, ADV.) AND M/S. IND SING DEVELOPERS P. LTD., NO.208, WEST MINISTER, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 052, PAN: AABCI 2107C. ... RESPONDENT

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M.Venkata Krishna Mohan

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGMENT Prathiba M. Singh J., The short question arising in the present appeal is – Whether the payment of Rs.1 Crore for exclusive use of the trade mark “HILTON” is to be treated as capital expenditure or revenue expenditure? 2. M/s. Hilton Roulands Ltd. (hereinafter „appellant‟) entered into Trade Mark license agreement dated 27th January, 1993 (hereinafter

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY INCOME TAX TRTBUNAL AppEAL NO: 57 OF 2002 Appeal Under Section 260 A of the lncome Tax Act , 1961 aggrieved by the order dated 31-12-2o01 in r.T.A. No. 336 / Hyd / 99 Assessment year 1995 -96 on the file of the court of the rncome Tax Appelate Tribunar , Hyderabad Bench- B Hyderabad . Counsel

Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajahmundry vs. M/s. Kakinada Coop. Town Bank LTd., Kakinada

Bench: The Court Is: “Whether, The Shares Invested Through A Portfolio Management

JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. This is an appeal filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT”) which upheld the action of the Revenue in treating the profit made by the appellant on sale of equity shares under the Portfolio-Management Schemes (“PMS”) as business income and not as capital gains, as claimed by the appellant

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s Pokarna Limited

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

justice and equity. These I.T.As. coming on for hearing, this day, N.Kumar J., delivered the following: JUDGMENT All these appeals are taken up for consideration together as the common question of law is involved and therefore, they are disposed of by this common order. However, for proper appreciation of the question of law involved, the facts in ITA No.374/2011

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

JUSTICE ASHOK MENON MONDAY ,THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 2ND ASWINA, 1940 ITA.No. 33 of 2010 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 509/COCH/2006 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 20-04-2009 APPELLANT/S:/APPELLANT/REVENUE : THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN. BY SRI.PKR MENON, SR. COUNSEL, GOI (TAXES) ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/S:/RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE : M/S.HARBOUR VIEW (NOW KNOWN

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Supriya Wines

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --------- For the Petitioners :Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate Mr. Ranjeet Kishwaha, Advocate Ms. Aanya, Advocate ( in both cases) For the State : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, A.P.P. (in both cases) For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Sr. Standing Counsel (in both cases) 07/Dated: 29/11/2022 These matters were taken up on 09.03.2017 and on that date learned

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA) 1.These Tax Appeals are arising in case of Smt.  Sulochana V. Gupta and late Shri Vijaykumar  Gupta   for   the   Assessment   Year   1992­93,  raising   common   issues   and   are   admitted   by  framing the following question of law by the  Co­ordinate Bench of this Court vide an order  dated 08.05.2008 as under: “Whether in the facts and circumstances

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA) 1.These Tax Appeals are arising in case of Smt.  Sulochana V. Gupta and late Shri Vijaykumar  Gupta   for   the   Assessment   Year   1992­93,  raising   common   issues   and   are   admitted   by  framing the following question of law by the  Co­ordinate Bench of this Court vide an order  dated 08.05.2008 as under: “Whether in the facts and circumstances

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA) 1.These Tax Appeals are arising in case of Smt.  Sulochana V. Gupta and late Shri Vijaykumar  Gupta   for   the   Assessment   Year   1992­93,  raising   common   issues   and   are   admitted   by  framing the following question of law by the  Co­ordinate Bench of this Court vide an order  dated 08.05.2008 as under: “Whether in the facts and circumstances

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri P.Sarveswara Rao

Appeals are partly allowed, in view of the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. The following common question arises in these batch of nine appeals arising from orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT”) hereafter: “Whether the ITAT was correct in law in holding that the amount received by the assessee by way of exemption of sales tax payments was not a trading receipt but was a capital

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Srimantha Granites

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

JUSTICE. THESE ITAs, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 20.06.2022 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR J, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:- JUDGMENT These appeals by Revenue have been admitted to consider the questions of law framed in respective appeals. After hearing Shri. E.I. Sanmathi, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue and Shri. A. Shankar, learned

The Commissioner of Income Tax- I vs. Harmahendar Singh Bagga

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

JUSTICE. THESE ITAs, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 20.06.2022 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR J, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:- JUDGMENT These appeals by Revenue have been admitted to consider the questions of law framed in respective appeals. After hearing Shri. E.I. Sanmathi, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue and Shri. A. Shankar, learned

The Commissioner of Income-tax-I, vs. Derco Cooling Coils Ltd,

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

JUSTICE. THESE ITAs, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 20.06.2022 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR J, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:- JUDGMENT These appeals by Revenue have been admitted to consider the questions of law framed in respective appeals. After hearing Shri. E.I. Sanmathi, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue and Shri. A. Shankar, learned

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

JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 5 of 36 J U D G M E N T Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.: 1. These are 11 appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟) of which 1 is by the Assessee and 10 are by the Revenue. Apart from the facts being similar, the questions

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 5 of 36 J U D G M E N T Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.: 1. These are 11 appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟) of which 1 is by the Assessee and 10 are by the Revenue. Apart from the facts being similar, the questions