Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

3(31) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Prior to 2002, it was availing exemption as local authority under Section 10(20) of the IT Act and, therefore, was not exigible to income tax. After insertion of the explanation in Section 10(20), the expression ‘local authority’ was confined to Panchayats Municipality, Municipal Committee, District Board and Cantonment Board. Maritime

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,S.CHALAPATHI RAO

3(XII)(b) & [c] has to be disclosed in the profit and loss account which is mandatory requirement, as set out in these provisions under Schedule VI of the Companies Act, having not been followed, the Income Tax Authorities are justified in rescrutinizing the book profit as per Sub-section (2) of Section 115JB of the Act. It is further

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 arising in respect of inuestments made before O1.A4.1997 are not eligiblefor exemptionu/s 1AQ3G) of the I.T.Act. (2) At the tirne of introduction of the Section pou)er generation projects are not brought into tl'rc ambit of Section 1O(23G). (3) The scope of exemption u/s 10

The Commissioner of Income Tax [Central] vs. Smt P Sujana

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

Capital gains” and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub-section (1) of section 72, or sub-section (2) of section 73, or sub-section (2) of section 73A or sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74, or sub- section (3) of section 74A, he may furnish, within the 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

3 years for long term capital assets was reduced to one year in respect of shares and mutual funds by inserting clause 37 in 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

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

3. The assessee for the AY 1998-99 had filed his return of income of Rs.2,33,89,820/- on 15th September, 1998. The income was revised to Rs.2,33,49,680/- vide revised return filed on 29th June, 1999. 4. For the AY 1999-2000, the assessee had filed its return of income on 29th June, 1999 declaring income

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

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

10 of the IT Act. By s. 6 of the IT Act the following six different heads of income are made chargeable : (1) salaries, (2) interest on securities, (3) income from property, (4) profits and gains of business, profession or vocation, (5) income from other sources and - - 32 (6) capital gains. This classification under distinct heads of income profits

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

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 3

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s Matrix Power Pvt Ltd.,

3) to (6) of sub-section 10B, more particularly, clause (ii) of sub-section (6) and ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and ITAT, Chennai, the losses of eligible units are to be set off against the profits of such eligible units in the subsequent years.‖ ITA 386/2013 Page 4 5. The ITAT, which the assessee

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

3 of 41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT 12.2.92 34.75 16.1.92 28.00 b) 5,000 2,01,250 19.2.92 40.25 9,80,000 16.1.92 Rs.4,43,750/­ c) 30,000 12,22,500 19.2.92 40.75 28 L & T 19,45,000 18.2.92 a) 10,000 194.50 21,30,000 b) 5,000 9,35,000 19.2.92 187.00 21.1.92 142.00 Rs.7,50,000/­ Total

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

3 of 41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT 12.2.92 34.75 16.1.92 28.00 b) 5,000 2,01,250 19.2.92 40.25 9,80,000 16.1.92 Rs.4,43,750/­ c) 30,000 12,22,500 19.2.92 40.75 28 L & T 19,45,000 18.2.92 a) 10,000 194.50 21,30,000 b) 5,000 9,35,000 19.2.92 187.00 21.1.92 142.00 Rs.7,50,000/­ Total

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

3 of 41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT 12.2.92 34.75 16.1.92 28.00 b) 5,000 2,01,250 19.2.92 40.25 9,80,000 16.1.92 Rs.4,43,750/­ c) 30,000 12,22,500 19.2.92 40.75 28 L & T 19,45,000 18.2.92 a) 10,000 194.50 21,30,000 b) 5,000 9,35,000 19.2.92 187.00 21.1.92 142.00 Rs.7,50,000/­ Total

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

capital gains. The assessee also attempted to produce evidence to show that the intention had not been to earn trading profit: first, the investment was undertaken by the assessee with its own surplus funds, and not borrowed funds, and second, that the holding period for a majority of the transactions was substantial. Moreover, the assessee sought to show that

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

Bench: The Learned

10 Act. 3. The subject matter of controversy in the appeals before the learned ITAT centres around the Assessee’s claim for deduction under Section 54F of the Act. 4. The Assessee filed her return of income for AY 2011-12 on 31.12.2011, declaring an income of ₹70,87,301/-. The Assessee also claimed a deduction of ₹90 crores under