The Commissioner of Income TAx-IV, vs. M/s. Mahaveer Enterprises (India) Limited

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gain in the ultimate analysis, the question is whether such grievance could be made long after the alleged violation of Section 10(5). If actual physical possession was taken over from the erstwhile landowner on 7.12.1991 as is alleged in the present case any grievance based on Section 10(5) ought to have been made within a reasonable time

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

5% non-cumulative shares of M/s GIPL was not proven. 10. The second part of the assessment order relates to the legal effect of having not established that the transfer of one lakh NIIT shares had taken place on 14th August, 1997. Assessing Officer took the date of sale/transfer for the purpose of capital gains

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

5- O,inerest or long ;tenn capital gains of an infrastructure capital companA from inuestments made on or after the l't dctA of June,l999,bg uag of shares or lorug tenn firuance in any enterpise uthollg engaged in the business of deueloping ,maintaining and oPerating anA infrastntcture facilitg and which has been approued by eh Central Gouernment

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

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

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,S.CHALAPATHI RAO

5. Learned counsel Sri.S P Bhat appearing along with Sri C Basavaiah for the appellant submitted that the authorities under the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for brevity) exceeded the jurisdiction in rescrutinising book profit, declared by the assessee and approved by the Registrar of Companies. 6 The Assessing Officer has no power to disturb

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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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 53A, the above mentioned requirements must be ITA 33/10 -11- satisfied. The thrust of the argument advanced by the learned Senior

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

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

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

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

5-P (LXX-6) of 1968, dated July 19, 1968, reads: Where the trust derives income from house 8. property, interest on securities, capital 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

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

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

The Commissoner of Income Tax I , vs. M/s. Alpha Thought Technologies P Ltd.,

In the result, the orders passed by the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

5 of Section 115JB opens the assessment of the application to all other provisions of the Act, except if specifically barred by that Section itself. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. supra took note of decision of the coordinate Bench in ‘MSR & SONS INVESTMENT LTD. VS. DY. CIT wherein

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