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

The appeal is allowed

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

Capital Territory of Delhi)16 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows : 16. On the said aspect, we would now refer to Section 20 of the Act which reads as under: ―20. Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration.—(1) Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 7 or Section 11 or clause

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. In other words, the Assessing Officer assumed the transfer price of each share of NIIT as Rs.1,493/-, instead of Rs.500/- per share. 11. Appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide orders dated 13th March, 2002. 12. Tribunal by common order dated 29th January, 2004 has dismissed the second appeals

The Commissioner of Income Tax - IV vs. M/s. Mekins Agro Product (P) Ltd.

Section v.. V 11(1). 6. Initially we were inclined to accept the submission raised by the Revenue that there are several good reasons why we have declined to interfere and refer the matter to a larger bench to consider judgment of this Court in DIT vs. Vishwa Jagriti Mission, ITA No.140/2012 (Del.). 7. The controversy in question

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

1) of section 36, IV. Finance Act 1999 introduced the follouing fufther Explanation: " Explanation 2.- For the remoual of doubts, it is herebg declared that ang income bg uag of diuidends, interest or long-term capital gains of an infrastntcture capital fund or an infrastructure capital compang from inuestments made before the 7"t daA of June, 1998 bg utay

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Laila Impex,

Accordingly answered against the Revenue. The appeals fail and are dismissed, without

Capital gains") for— (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property ; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Nara Constructions,

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

gains of business or profession" (before making any deduction under this clause) carried to such reserve account: Provided that where the aggregate of the amounts carried to such reserve account from time to time exceeds twice the amount of the paid up share capital and of the general reserves of the specified entity, no allowance under this clause shall

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

section 11(1) in its commercial sense. The relevant portion of the Circular No.5XX-6 of 1968, dated 19-6- 1968 (See Taxmann’s Direct Taxes Circulars, Vol. 1, 1980 edn. P.85) reads: “Where the trust derives income from house property, interest on securities, capital gains

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, HYD vs. M/S. SUJANA METALS LTD, HYD

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

capital gain by virtue of section 55 (2) (a) read with clause (i) of the proviso to Section 28 (va). The AR has also relied on the provisions of section 45 (1) read with 2 (14), 2 (11

M/S NATIONAL ACADEMY OF CONSTRUCTION vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

capital receipt and therefore both, section 11 (5) and Section 13 (l) (d) of the Act, would not be applicable. 15- Learned counsel appearing for the department on the other harrd justifying the order of the ITAT, contended that since the order of the assessing ofhcer has already been subjected to scrutiny and challenge, there is hardly any scope left

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

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,S.CHALAPATHI RAO

1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(III) BANGALORE. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 12(2),BANGALORE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI E R INDRAKUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL & E I SANMATHI.ADV.) 2 THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT BANGALORE IN ITA NO.1012/BNG/2007, DATED 07/10/2008 CONFIRM THE ORDERS

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

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

Capital Gain which is found to be incorrect. He submits that the penalty was imposed upon the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 591 of 2017 by order dated 06.06.2018 which was challenged by the petitioner before the First Appellate Authority and the First Appellate Authority affirmed the penalty thereafter the Second Appellant Authority by order dated 15.07.2020 set aside the penalty

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

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

11. Section 28 of the Act deals with Profits and Gains of business and profession which reads as under: Profits and gains of business or profession. 28. The following income shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession",— - - 21 (i) the profits and gains of any business or profession which was carried

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

11. Having   heard   the   learned   advocates   of   the  respective parties and having gone through the  material   on   record,   in   order   to   answer   the  questions framed, it would be germane to refer  to relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act,  Page 23 of 41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT 1961 as under: Section 2 (14)  "capital asset" means— (a)   property   of   any   kind   held

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

11. Having   heard   the   learned   advocates   of   the  respective parties and having gone through the  material   on   record,   in   order   to   answer   the  questions framed, it would be germane to refer  to relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act,  Page 23 of 41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT 1961 as under: Section 2 (14)  "capital asset" means— (a)   property   of   any   kind   held

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

11. Having   heard   the   learned   advocates   of   the  respective parties and having gone through the  material   on   record,   in   order   to   answer   the  questions framed, it would be germane to refer  to relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act,  Page 23 of 41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT 1961 as under: Section 2 (14)  "capital asset" means— (a)   property   of   any   kind   held

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Sri Anand Prakash Sanghi

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gains can be computed under Section 45. Electricity and phone connections were taken by M/s.MAPL with the intention to start business, which was a non starter, and ultimately ended up in rescission of contract. The learned counsel for the assessee points out that there is no recital in the agreement for sale produced at Annexures-A and B regarding possession