Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur. vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Kangiri.

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.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

26 Links, New Delhi of Rs.10.75 Crores. During the AY 1999-2000, the assessee had sold 65,552 equity shares of NIIT to M/s GIPL on 2nd April, 1998 for Rs.5,89,96,800/- resulting in capital gains of Rs.5,87,09,331/-. Further, M/s GIPL had a book loss of Rs.1,63,10,300/- as per return

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 of Rs.31,43,80,59O/ earned by the Appellant on the sale of 26,80,000 shares of Andhra pradesh Gas power Corporation Ltd., to ta-x while computing the income under normal provisions of the Act and also under the Special provisions of section 1 15JB of the Act stating that the provision of section

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

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

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

Section 143(3) of the Act and 1 Assessment Year I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 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

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

Section 143(3) of the Act and 1 Assessment Year I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 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

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

Section 143(3) of the Act and 1 Assessment Year I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 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

The Commissioner of Income Tax III, vs. M/s. Swagath Seeds Private Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 250(4) of the Act, directed the Assessing Officer to submit the Remand Report. The relevant extract of the remand report reads as under: “Addition as long term capital gain – Rs.2,94,26,600/-(point 7) The assessee’s argument in this regard are acceptable. Addition as income from other sources – Foreign Travel-Rs.1,12,475/-( Point

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 vs. M/s Supriya Wines

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

10. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in both the cases draws the attention of the Court to Section 277C(1) of the Income Tax Act and submits that this section provides for penalty and prosecution is prescribed therein. He further submits that section 277 of the Income Tax Act speaks of false statement filed

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