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

M/S UNICORN AGRO TECH LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD. vs. THE ASST. COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the

Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 10 of the Act by Finance No. 2 Act, 2004 with effect from 01.04.2005. Further the tribunal failed to consider that the short term capital gains from shares held as investment could not be assessed as business income merely because the period of holding of the shares in such cases was somewhat short as compared to other investments. Thus

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s.Mold-Tek Technologies Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10 of 24 C/TAXAP/273/2011                                                                                                 JUDGMENT 2008 was directed to prevent the unholy practice of pure trade, commerce and business entities from masking their activities and portraying them in the garb of an activity with the object of a general public utility. It is not designed to hit at those institutions, which had the advancement of the objects of general public

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. In other words, the Assessing Officer assumed the transfer price of each share of NIIT as Rs.1,493/-, instead of Rs.500/- per share. 11. Appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide orders dated 13th March, 2002. 12. Tribunal by common order dated 29th January, 2004 has dismissed the second appeals

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,S.CHALAPATHI RAO

10. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 11. Section 115JB of the Act during the relevant period provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, in the case of an assessee being a company, the income tax payable on the total income as computed under the Act is less than

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 reads as under: Income from house property. 22. The annual value of property consisting of any buildings or lands appurtenant thereto of which the assessee is the owner, other than such portions of such property as he may occupy

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-III vs. Sri Anand Prakash Sanghi

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10. Section 53A was inserted to the TP Act by the Transfer of Property Amendment Act, 1929 to import into India the equitable doctrine of part performance. The Hon'ble Supreme Court Court has in 2002 (3) SCC 676 at 682 [Shrimant Shamrao Suryavanshi & Anr. v. Pralhad Bhairoba Suryavanshi (D) by LRs. & Ors.], stated as follows: "16. But there

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

15. In paragraph 12 of the assessment order  it has been mentioned by Assessing Officer  that according to the assessment order for  Asst.   Year   1991­92   read   with   order   under  section 154 there is no carry forward loss,  therefore, no set off of the same is given.” 9.4. Referring to the above facts which are not in  dispute, it was submitted

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

15. In paragraph 12 of the assessment order  it has been mentioned by Assessing Officer  that according to the assessment order for  Asst.   Year   1991­92   read   with   order   under  section 154 there is no carry forward loss,  therefore, no set off of the same is given.” 9.4. Referring to the above facts which are not in  dispute, it was submitted

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

15. In paragraph 12 of the assessment order  it has been mentioned by Assessing Officer  that according to the assessment order for  Asst.   Year   1991­92   read   with   order   under  section 154 there is no carry forward loss,  therefore, no set off of the same is given.” 9.4. Referring to the above facts which are not in  dispute, it was submitted

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, vs. Sri Prem Chand

15. In Bajaj Tempo Ltd. Vs. CIT, (1992) 196 ITR 188 (SC) at page 197, the Apex Court held as under:- “But, for purposes of construing the proviso in section 15C, it is not necessary to go that far as there can be no doubt that a literal construction of clause (i) of sub-section (2) was amenable to denial

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

section 111A on short term capital gains were both denied. 7. Counsel for the Appellant argued that the transactions must be considered by themselves, while applying the tests to determine whether they are investments or adventure in the nature of trade. It is urged that the PMS agreement, by its terms alone or by the fact of agency being handed

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gains, as an essential object for forming an AOP. However the CBDT Circular explaining the above insertion states that such insertion was only to take care of the claim of certain bodies that they did not fall within the definition of a ‘person’ for the sole reason, that they were not supposed to have any income or profits. Section

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Hyderabad House Pvt Ltd.,

capitalizing it with the multiplier of 14 on the basis of age of the claimant mother (44 years old) in view of dicta in Amrit Bhanu Shali & Ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 11 SCC 738. 14. The claimants by their appeal (MAC appeal No. 881/2015) submit that the non-pecuniary heads of damages have not been property taken

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

10. \Vhen thc' order of the assessing officer was challenged befon' the fust appellate auhority ;.a., C.ommissioner oi Income Tax (,\ppcals). the first appellate authoriry upheld the decision ot the esscssing officer on both aspects i.e., sale consideration per share ;rnd rl'rc number of shares sold. It was thereafter thar assessee iiled hrrrhe r.rppeal before the Tribunal. 11. '['ribr-rn.rl