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

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

30). The first contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is that the intention of the Legislature in deleting Clause (29) of Section 10 and introduction of Section 10 Sub- clause (20) itself shows that the Legislature did not want to extend the benefit of exemption to Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti. This argument is without any force because Sections

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

30, 2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata (tribunal) in ITA No. 1006/Kol/2008 for the assessment year 2005-2006. The appeal was admitted on April 29, 2009 on the following substantial question of law:- (1) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal substantially erred in law in holding that the gain of Rs. 29,28,799/- made

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

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 for the AY 1998-99 and any profit in future on sale of the transferred NIIT shares would be adjusted against this accumulated book loss. 8. Assessment Order records that to investigate, whether this was a case

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" and  shall be deemed to be the income of such person  of the previous year in which such money or other  asset   was   received   and   for   the   purposes   of  section 48, value of any money or the fair market  value of other assets on the date of such receipt  shall   be   deemed   to   be   the   full   value

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gains" and  shall be deemed to be the income of such person  of the previous year in which such money or other  asset   was   received   and   for   the   purposes   of  section 48, value of any money or the fair market  value of other assets on the date of such receipt  shall   be   deemed   to   be   the   full   value

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gains" and  shall be deemed to be the income of such person  of the previous year in which such money or other  asset   was   received   and   for   the   purposes   of  section 48, value of any money or the fair market  value of other assets on the date of such receipt  shall   be   deemed   to   be   the   full   value

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(Central) vs. M/s.Madhu Enterprises

Bench: The Learned

Section 54F to ₹30 crores, as against ₹90 crores claimed by the Assessee. 7. The Assessee had deposited the consideration in the capital gains account in two tranches – ₹30 crores on 28.07.2011 and ₹60 crores on 29.07.2011. The AO noted that the Assessee had paid a certain amount to a charitable trust/educational society, which, in turn, had paid certain sums

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Ascend Telecom Infrastructure Private Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gains of business shall be computed in accordance with section 30 to section 43C, That, section 32(1) of the Act provides for depreciation in respect of building, plant and machinery owned by the assessee and used for the business purposes. It further provides for deduction subject to section 34. In that matter also, a similar argument