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

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

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

4. On appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax, the appellate authority, following the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs VEEKAYLAL INVESTMENT CO.(P) LTD. ((2001)249 ITR 597 (Bom) has held that, even under clause 3(xii)(b) of Part II of 5 Schedule VI to the Companies

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

capital gains). Under section 72, a provision has been made for carry forward and setting off of a loss sustained against the head of profits and gains of business or profession. Under section 72, where a loss which has been sustained under the head of profits and gains of business or profession cannot be set-off against income under

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

11(4) BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI FOR SRI. E. I. SANMATHI, ADV.) AND M/S. IND SING DEVELOPERS P. LTD., NO.208, WEST MINISTER, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 052, PAN: AABCI 2107C. ... RESPONDENT THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 APPEAL UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

11,69,453. ITA 549/2011 Page 4 of 16 During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by Assessing Officer that the assessee had shown the income from Long Term Capital Gains @ ` 3,80,02,500/-. Moreover, AO observed that this income should be made taxable under the head „Business and Professions‟ vis-a-vis „Capital Gain‟ as taken

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

4 consideration in Konaseema EPS Oakwell Power Limited, an industrial undertaking, with arr infrastructure facility for power generation and was also notified under sec 1O(23G) by Central Government. The respondent claimed that these long-term capital gains are exempted under sec. 1O(23G). The AO relied on the Memorandum explaining the provisions in Finance Bill (No.2

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

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Nama Nageshwar Rao

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

4. The Revenue is aggrieved with the aforesaid impugned order and has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Act, proposing the following questions of law: a. Whether the ITAT is justified in deleting the additions made on account of bogus long term capital gain on the ground that the evidences found during search at the premises

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

4) the transferee must in part - performance of the contract take possession of the property, or of any part thereof; (5) the transferee must have done some act in furtherance of the contract; and (6) the transferee must have performed or be willing to perform his part of the contract." 11. To claim benefit of part performance under Section

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

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

4. Revenue relies upon decision ofthe Kerala High Court in Lissie Medical Institution vs. C/r(2012) 348 ITR 344 (Ker). The said decision, no doubt, supports the proposition propounded by the Revenue and we would like to reproduce the following observations:- 5. "Senior counsel, Sri A. K. J. Nambiar, a;ppearing for the assessee, submitted that the assessee has been

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

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 2(+7) of the Act for the pu4roses of computation o[ 7 gains tax accordingly. On the balance 75,000 shares rurder lock-in- period or tLnder pledge, libeny qranted t,-, the revenue \\-i1S authorities to lery capital gains tax in the relevant assessment )ear after expiry of the lock-in-period or after No Objection Crniiicate

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

section 111A on short term capital gains were both denied. 7. Counsel for the Appellant argued that the transactions must be considered by themselves, while applying the tests to determine whether they are investments or adventure in the nature of trade. It is urged that the PMS agreement, by its terms alone or by the fact of agency being handed