The Commissioner of Income TAx-IV, vs. M/s. Mahaveer Enterprises (India) Limited

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gain in the ultimate analysis, the question is whether such grievance could be made long after the alleged violation of Section 10(5). If actual physical possession was taken over from the erstwhile landowner on 7.12.1991 as is alleged in the present case any grievance based on Section 10(5) ought to have been made within a reasonable time

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

20,OOOl at a vaiue of Rs.24 l- per share' The capital gain '"vas Rs.31,56,8O,000/-. After indexation, lhe long-term capital gain arrived at Rs.31,43,80,590/ . The respondent c laimed to have invested the amount c'f sale t*r- * ,dt&+re. 4 i 4 consideration in Konaseema EPS Oakwell Power Limited, an industrial undertaking

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

10 of 26 the allottees within 30 days to the Registrar of Companies. Balance sheet of M/s GIPL as on 31st March, 1998 had not been filed with the Registrar of Companies till completion of assessment, i.e. 7th March, 2001, though it was stated that the audit was completed and finalized on 1st September, 1998. 14. Thus, the tribunal observed

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

20 D.—Profits and gains of business or profession. E.—Capital gains. F.—Income from other sources. 10. Section 22 of the Act deals

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

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

20 in this behalf by notification in the Official Gazette; (iv) 6 1/2 per cent Gold Bonds, 1977, issued by the Central Government; (v) Special Bearer Bonds, 1991, issued by the Central Government; ITA 549/2011 Page 10 of 16 (vi) Gold Deposit Bonds issued under the Gold Deposit Scheme, 1999 notified by the Central Government.” Section 2 (11): “block

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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 AS HARBOUR VIEW RESIDENCY PVT.LTD.), OPP. COCHIN SHIPYARD, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS.SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) SMT.BOBY M.SEKHAR SMT.DIVYA RAVINDRAN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX vs. M/S V.SATAYANARAYANA

The appeal is allowed

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

Capital Territory of Delhi)16 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows : 16. On the said aspect, we would now refer to Section 20 of the Act which reads as under: ―20. Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration.—(1) Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 7 or Section 11 or clause

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

capital gain. The intention of the Legislature or the purpose with which the said provision has been incorporated in the Act, is also very clear that the assessee should be given some relief. Though it has been very often said that common sense is a stranger and an incompatible partner to the Income Tax Act and it is also said

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gains,  accrued   by   sales   of   relevant   shares,   is  irrelevant for deciding the allowability or  otherwise of loss shown by the assessee on  alleged sale of these shares, as sales have  not   been   conclusively   established   by   the  assessee. 26.   In   view   of   above   discussion,   we   hold  that   as   assessee   could   not   establish   the  factum   of   sales   made   to   his/her   associate  concern

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gains,  accrued   by   sales   of   relevant   shares,   is  irrelevant for deciding the allowability or  otherwise of loss shown by the assessee on  alleged sale of these shares, as sales have  not   been   conclusively   established   by   the  assessee. 26.   In   view   of   above   discussion,   we   hold  that   as   assessee   could   not   establish   the  factum   of   sales   made   to   his/her   associate  concern

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gains,  accrued   by   sales   of   relevant   shares,   is  irrelevant for deciding the allowability or  otherwise of loss shown by the assessee on  alleged sale of these shares, as sales have  not   been   conclusively   established   by   the  assessee. 26.   In   view   of   above   discussion,   we   hold  that   as   assessee   could   not   establish   the  factum   of   sales   made   to   his/her   associate  concern

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

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

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

M/s. Maruthi Movies vs. Income Tax Officer

Bench: This Court & Making The Same A Rule Of Court, Alongwith Decree Against Respondents Awarding Rs.5,35,920/- Paid By The Petitioner To The Arbitrator As Their Share Of Fees As Per Order Dated 21.12.2010. 2. Respondent No.1 Has Filed Its Objections To The Award Under Section 30 & 33 Of The Act In Form Of I.A. No.9067/2011. Respondent No.2 Has Also Filed Its Objections To The Award.

Capital of only Rs.2000/- and did not even have a bank account on the date of entering into the Agreement. They submit that even the amount of Rs.1.25 lac stated to have been deposited with the L&DO was infact paid by Mr.R.Ganguly and not by the petitioner. They submit that therefore, the petitioner was neither ready nor willing

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Srimantha Granites

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10(E) [No. 9447 (F.NO.164/3/87-ITA-I)] dated 06.01.1994 issued by the Central Government submitted that agricultural lands, which fall within a distance of 8 kms from Municipal Limits in all directions from Bengaluru only, would fall within the definition of 'Capital Asset'. 15. The Assessing Officer in para 4.3.3 of his order has recorded that assessees had filed a Certificate