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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gains   tax   or   capital   loss,   the  essential requirements are that there should  be a transfer of a capital asset effected in  the   previous   year.   This   would   require  ascertainment   of   the   meaning   of   the   terms  transfer and capital assets. Transfer has been  defined, in relation to a capital asset, to  include   various   contingencies   stipulated   by  sub­clauses of Section

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gains   tax   or   capital   loss,   the  essential requirements are that there should  be a transfer of a capital asset effected in  the   previous   year.   This   would   require  ascertainment   of   the   meaning   of   the   terms  transfer and capital assets. Transfer has been  defined, in relation to a capital asset, to  include   various   contingencies   stipulated   by  sub­clauses of Section

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gains   tax   or   capital   loss,   the  essential requirements are that there should  be a transfer of a capital asset effected in  the   previous   year.   This   would   require  ascertainment   of   the   meaning   of   the   terms  transfer and capital assets. Transfer has been  defined, in relation to a capital asset, to  include   various   contingencies   stipulated   by  sub­clauses of Section

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5 vs. M/s Vijay Textiles Limited

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10 The First Party further agrees and covenants as follows: 10.1 At its own cost and expense, it shall furnish and provide all such information including documents, correspondences, statements and data as may reasonably be required by the Second Party in respect of the contract property and its development and 23 selling rights including but not limited to a General

Commissioner of Income Tax - II, vs. M/s. The Andhra Pradesh State Co-op Bank Ltd.,

Appeal is disposed of

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Gains of Business or Profession". This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003276 ITA 564/2012 Page 3 of 5 7. Thus, from perusal of Section 37 (1) of the Act, it is evident that the aforesaid provision permits deduction for the expenditure laid out or expnded and does not contain a requirement that there

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Srimantha Granites

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

37 guntas 14.02.2007 MR Kodanda Ram 10 acres 8 guntas 14.02.2007 MR Ananda Ram 21 acres 27 guntas 14.02.2007 MR Prabhavathy 2 acres 10 guntas 5 acres 38 guntas 9 acres 12 guntas 5 acres 26 guntas 08.02.2008 08.02.2008 08.02.2008 14.01.2008 MR Sampangiramaiah 11 acres 08.02.2008 MR Padmavathy Trust 9 acres 32 guntas 08.02.2008 3. Assessees filed returns of income

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

37 guntas 14.02.2007 MR Kodanda Ram 10 acres 8 guntas 14.02.2007 MR Ananda Ram 21 acres 27 guntas 14.02.2007 MR Prabhavathy 2 acres 10 guntas 5 acres 38 guntas 9 acres 12 guntas 5 acres 26 guntas 08.02.2008 08.02.2008 08.02.2008 14.01.2008 MR Sampangiramaiah 11 acres 08.02.2008 MR Padmavathy Trust 9 acres 32 guntas 08.02.2008 3. Assessees filed returns of income

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

37 guntas 14.02.2007 MR Kodanda Ram 10 acres 8 guntas 14.02.2007 MR Ananda Ram 21 acres 27 guntas 14.02.2007 MR Prabhavathy 2 acres 10 guntas 5 acres 38 guntas 9 acres 12 guntas 5 acres 26 guntas 08.02.2008 08.02.2008 08.02.2008 14.01.2008 MR Sampangiramaiah 11 acres 08.02.2008 MR Padmavathy Trust 9 acres 32 guntas 08.02.2008 3. Assessees filed returns of income

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

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Energy Solutions International India Pvt Ltd.,

Bench: J. UMA DEVI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

37, which has the following text: “Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in section 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee) laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Independent Assemblies of God

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA-290-2005 (O&M) -5- more of the nature as notified in Sub Section (2). The appellant concededly incurred expenses with respected to feasibility of project. The expenses were incurred by way of travelling and staff salary. Those expenses directly related to expansion of undertaking as well

Kuchipudi Krishna Kishore vs. The DCIT

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

37 of the Act cannot be sustained. 14. Section 57 of the Act deals with income chargeable under the head of income from other sources which shall be computed after the enumerated deductions. Sub-section (iii) prescribes that any other expenditure not being the nature of capital expenditure expended exclusively for the purpose of making or earning on the borrowed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922? It was acknowledged that “In choosing to compensate its constituents for the loss of their jewellery and maintain its business connections and goodwill, the bank laid out expenditure for the purpose of its business.” 32. It was further explained that “The sole question is whether the bank in incurring

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922? It was acknowledged that “In choosing to compensate its constituents for the loss of their jewellery and maintain its business connections and goodwill, the bank laid out expenditure for the purpose of its business.” 32. It was further explained that “The sole question is whether the bank in incurring

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX vs. M/S V.SATAYANARAYANA

The appeal is allowed

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

37 l. In the case of from B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P12 the Hon‘ble Supreme Court observed as follows : ―7. Insofar as the offence under Section 7 is concerned, it is a settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute

The Commissioner of Income-tax(Exemptions) vs. WarangalWarangal Diocese Society

The appeals are dismissed, along with pending

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the Act") challenging the judgment dated 17.07.2019 (“Impugned Judgment”) passed by the learned Single Judge in OMP (COMM) No. 82 of 2017 and OMP (COMM) No. 83 of 2017 whereby the learned Single Judge has upheld the Awards as passed by the Sole Arbitrator. 2. The facts in brief as stated

PRL COMMR OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. K RAVINDER REDDY, HYDERABAD

In the result, this Cr.M.P

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

37, the judgment of which was pronounced on 05.09.2006 but even though by that date, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has already pronounced its judgment in the case of K.C. Builders & Another vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) but the said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was somehow not placed before