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

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

capital gains exempt under section 10(23G) are available, the CBDT has clarified the issue through a press release, resoiving the matter. Therefore, the question of exemption under section 1O(23G) is no longer a concern, as correctly observed by the Income Tai Appellate Tribunal. 23

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

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

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

23 of 41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT 1961 as under: Section 2 (14)  "capital asset" means— (a)   property   of   any   kind   held   by   an   assessee,  whether   or   not   connected   with   his   business   or  profession; (b)   any   securities   held   by   a   Foreign  Institutional Investor which has invested in such  securities   in   accordance   with   the   regulations  made under the Securities and Exchange Board

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

23 of 41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT 1961 as under: Section 2 (14)  "capital asset" means— (a)   property   of   any   kind   held   by   an   assessee,  whether   or   not   connected   with   his   business   or  profession; (b)   any   securities   held   by   a   Foreign  Institutional Investor which has invested in such  securities   in   accordance   with   the   regulations  made under the Securities and Exchange Board

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

23 of 41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT 1961 as under: Section 2 (14)  "capital asset" means— (a)   property   of   any   kind   held   by   an   assessee,  whether   or   not   connected   with   his   business   or  profession; (b)   any   securities   held   by   a   Foreign  Institutional Investor which has invested in such  securities   in   accordance   with   the   regulations  made under the Securities and Exchange Board

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

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

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

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

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

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.Sri Jayalakshmi Power Corporation Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

23 and 28, 2005 of share purchased by the appellant on February 10, 2004 were long term capital gains exempt under section

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

Bench: The Learned

gain on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged in case of investment in residential house. *** *** *** Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply where.– (a) the assessee,– (i) owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of the transfer of the original asset; or” 14. The AO held that

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions0 vs. Kalinga Cultural Trust

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

capital gain earned. It is urged that since, the tribunal has failed to determine the core issue with regard to colorable devise adopted by the 15 assessee, to evade tax, therefore, the matter be remitted to the tribunal for decision afresh in accordance with law. In support of aforesaid submissions, the reliance is placed on decision of Supreme Court

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5 vs. M/s. VBC Industries Limited

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

capital gain earned. It is urged that since, the tribunal has failed to determine the core issue with regard to colorable devise adopted by the 15 assessee, to evade tax, therefore, the matter be remitted to the tribunal for decision afresh in accordance with law. In support of aforesaid submissions, the reliance is placed on decision of Supreme Court

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