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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,S.CHALAPATHI RAO

Section 115JB of the Act. It is further contended that the Judgment of Veekaylal 10 (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the case, as such the authorities are justified in following the said Judgment, that the capital gains

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Capital gains. F.—Income from other sources. 10. Section 22 of the Act deals with income from House property which

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

10. Once we accept the fact that the brand names, trademark, copyright and good will in the aforesaid journals sold/transfered by the assessee to the transferee, it would clearly be a case of sale of capital asset and the gain therefrom would be computed as capital gain. In the present case, following facts are not in dispute which will clearly

The Commissioner of Income Tax(Central) vs. M/s.Madhu Enterprises

Bench: The Learned

Section 54F to ₹30 crores, as against ₹90 crores claimed by the Assessee. 7. The Assessee had deposited the consideration in the capital gains account in two tranches – ₹30 crores on 28.07.2011 and ₹60 crores on 29.07.2011. The AO noted that the Assessee had paid a certain amount to a charitable trust/educational society, which, in turn, had paid certain sums

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

capital asset in the assessment year lgg7 _gg and consequently no profit or 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

Sri Natakari Gopal vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and 2 Others

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 3Rd January, 2023. Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mita, Adv. ..For Appellant Mr. Pranit Bag , Adv. Mr. A. K. Mishra, Adv. Mr. Debdatta Saha, Adv. …For Respondent Re: Ga/1/2022 The Court:- Heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, Learned Advocate For The Appellant & Mr. Pranit Bag, Learned Advocate For The Respondent. There Is A Delay Of 1126 Days In Filing The Appeal. Though The Reasons Given In The Affidavit Are Not Convincing The Issues Involved In The Appeal Had Been Decided By This Court In Earlier Matters, This Court Exercises Discretion & Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal. Accordingly, The Application Is Allowed.

Capital Gains of Rs.1,12,13,010/- and also claim bogus exemption u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on such amount of LTCG claimed, thereby giving rise to the vice of flaw in the decision making processes ? We have heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Pranit Kumar Bag, learned Counsel

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

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 of law too are common to many of the appeals. They are accordingly disposed of by this common judgment. Background facts 2. The Assessee is engaged to the business

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Nama Nageshwar Rao

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

capital gain on the ground that the evidences found during search at the premises of entry provider cannot be the basis for making additions in assessment completed u/S. 153A in the case of beneficiary ignoring the vital fact that there was a common search u/s 132 conducted on the same day in both the cases of the entry provider

Kuchipudi Krishna Kishore vs. The DCIT

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

section ('1 ) (iii) deals with the amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purpose of the business or profession. The proviso explains that the amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for acquisition of an asset even if it is not capitalized in the book of accounts for any period beginning from the date

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

section 260A of the tncome Tax Act, 1961 aggrieved by the order dated 19-6-2009 passed in lrA.No.346t{ydto4 on the file of the tncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad bench ,A,, Hyderabad. Between: The commissioner of rncome Tax-ilr, r.T. Towers, A.c. Guards, Masab rank, Hyderabad AND ...Appeltant M/s. Sanghirextiles Limited, 4-3-3s2, Bank street, Koti

M/S NATIONAL ACADEMY OF CONSTRUCTION vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

10. Noor Nagar, [ianjara Hrlis, Hyderabad - 500034. ...Ai']PE -LANT I\ND lisst. Director Of lncome Tax(Exemptions) - | , Ayakar Bhavan, Basheer Bagh, llyderabad ..RESPONDENT |.T.T.A.M.P. NO. 305 0F 2014 Petition Under Section '151 of CPC praying for the aforesaid reasons s,urted in the accompanying affidavit filed therewith, the Horr'bie Court may be pleased to pass an order staying

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

Appeals are allowed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

10. Clause 4.5 is of utmost importance. It declares the assessee shall not have any right to the Intellectual Property rights. In other words, though the assessee pays the cost stipulated in the agreement for using the facility it does not confer any right in the intellectual property rights. In other words though the agreement is styled as ‘cost sharing

The Commissioner of Income-tax(Exemptions) vs. WarangalWarangal Diocese Society

The appeals are dismissed, along with pending

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

Capital Territory of Delhi were banned due to which there was a shortage of the mining materials and the rates of various raw materials were hiked by the mine lease holders. Another letter was sent by the Respondent to Appellant in the same regard showing the current and previous market rates and requesting the Appellant to increase the rates accordingly

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

gain as General Manager (HR&A) "Bidyut Unnayan Bhaban", Plot No. 3/C, LA Block, Sector-III, P.O. - Salt Lake City, P.S.- Bidhannagar, District- Kolkata, West Bengal, PIN – 700106 ..........Petitioner. -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, having its office at Yojna Bhawan, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand