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

c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short „the Act‟). This appeal, vide order dated 16th July, 2008, was directed to be listed along with ITA Nos.405/2005 and 406/2005 without a substantial question of law being framed. ITA Nos. 405/2005, 406/2005 & 389/2007 Page 3 of 26 3. The assessee for the AY 1998-99 had filed his return

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 - IV vs. M/s. Mekins Agro Product (P) Ltd.

gains, or other sources, the word 'income' should be understood in its commercial sense, i.e., book income, after adding back any appropriations or applications thereof towards the purpose of the trust or otherwise, and also after adding back any debits made for capital expenditure incurred for the purposes of the trust or otherwise.lt should be noted, in this connection, that

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

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

1)(c) of the Act has been struck down by the Tribunal, the assessing officer has no other alternative except to correct his order under Section 154 of the Act as per the directions of the Tribunal. As already noticed, the subject-matter of the complaint before this Court is concealment of income arrived at on the basis

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

c) That the compary fa1ls within the definition of "Infrastructure Capital Company" envisaged 1N SCC 1o(23G), 17. It is further observed by the Tribunal that section 1O(23G) as it existed immediately before amendment by Finance (No.2) Act, 1998, clearly states that an1, income by way of long-tt:rm capital gain of an rnfrastructure ciipital fund is exempt

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

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. 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

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) 9b), 48 and Section 55 (2) (ii) of the Act. The combined reading of the above provisions and of section

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

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

1)(c) of the Act has been struck down by the Tribunal, the assessing officer has no other alternative except to correct his order under Section 154 of the Act as per the directions of the Tribunal. As already noticed, the subject- matter of the complaint before this Court is concealment of income arrived at on the basis

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. 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

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), vs. M/s Country Club Inda Limited

11 of 57 according to the Assessee, it was not required to have its accounts audited in the tax jurisdiction where the Assessee is a resident, namely, Delaware, USA. Thereafter, on 18th December, 2006, the AO passed an assessment order under Section 143(3)/147 of the Act. Assessment Order dated 18th December, 2006 14. The AO observed that

K.V.D.PRASAD RAO vs. THE JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

1{s.15l- p('r shrlr-r .rs claimed by the assessee. FIe accordinglv computecl thi: long tcnn capital gains. FIe funher held that nott-ithsurnding tlic lock-irrperiod and the pledge of shares, those mtst br' regaftlcd ls li.rving been sold or trarsferred within the rreaning of Section 2('17) of rlre Act as the entire consideration 5 \\?s rtccived