Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

25. AIR 2004 SC 86 26. (1944) 1 All ER 119 27. 1909 AC 323 28. AIR 1960 SC 1203 29. AIR 1961 SC 343 30. (2006) 285 ITR 237 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN I.T.T.A.Nos

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

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 Income Tax-III, vs. Sri Prem Chand

25. The expression “required by him for use in” quantifies each of the following activity independently:- (i) in manufacture of goods or; (ii) in porcessing goods for sale or; (iii) in mining or; (iv) in generation of electricity or; (v) in distribution of electricity; 26. Read in correct perspective, it can be well said that any articles purchased

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-II, vs. M/S Gulf Oil Corporation Pvt. Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10 of 41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT all   other   transactions   are   done   through   broker  only)   creates   suspicion   and   to   remove   this  suspicion,  the  assessee  was  under  an obligation  to   bring   on   record   the   evidence   to   prove  conclusively   that   shares   in   particular   were  actually   delivered   to   GAFL.   Not   only   such  evidence   of delivery   is absent  but  there  is no evidence   on   record

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10 of 41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT all   other   transactions   are   done   through   broker  only)   creates   suspicion   and   to   remove   this  suspicion,  the  assessee  was  under  an obligation  to   bring   on   record   the   evidence   to   prove  conclusively   that   shares   in   particular   were  actually   delivered   to   GAFL.   Not   only   such  evidence   of delivery   is absent  but  there  is no evidence   on   record

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10 of 41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT all   other   transactions   are   done   through   broker  only)   creates   suspicion   and   to   remove   this  suspicion,  the  assessee  was  under  an obligation  to   bring   on   record   the   evidence   to   prove  conclusively   that   shares   in   particular   were  actually   delivered   to   GAFL.   Not   only   such  evidence   of delivery   is absent  but  there  is no evidence   on   record

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Srimantha Granites

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10 added taxes against each assessee, as shown herein below, on the ground that the lands sold by them are capital assets and the capital gains arising on the said assets are chargeable to tax: Assessee Original return of income Revised return of income M R Seetha Ram 14,86,22,780/- 22,90,570/- M R Pattabhi

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

10 added taxes against each assessee, as shown herein below, on the ground that the lands sold by them are capital assets and the capital gains arising on the said assets are chargeable to tax: Assessee Original return of income Revised return of income M R Seetha Ram 14,86,22,780/- 22,90,570/- M R Pattabhi

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

10 added taxes against each assessee, as shown herein below, on the ground that the lands sold by them are capital assets and the capital gains arising on the said assets are chargeable to tax: Assessee Original return of income Revised return of income M R Seetha Ram 14,86,22,780/- 22,90,570/- M R Pattabhi

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

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 Commissoner of Income Tax I , vs. M/s. Alpha Thought Technologies P Ltd.,

In the result, the orders passed by the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

iii) of the Act. 23 13. Section 115JB(5) of the Act reads as under: “(5) Save as otherwise provided in this section, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to every assessee being a company, mentioned in this Section.” Thus, by virtue of sub-Section (5) of Section 115JB, the application of other provisions

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

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

iii). It has been further alleged that even subsequent to the said search, false statement was made by the petitioner on examination on oath under section 131(1A) of the Act. (iv).It has been further alleged that the petitioner had even attempted to evade tax which attracts offence under section

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

Kuchipudi Krishna Kishore vs. The DCIT

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

10 IrsKltt\ I nl i I'1.\s l') l.l{)-]&19I ]lIri allowed as deduction pertinenfly this provision is addressing the payment of interest on the capital for the purpose of business and not earning expenditure. The accepted case of the assessee that the investment was to constitute and carry out the business with the object to gain controiling interest