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

gains of an infrastructure capital fund or an infrostntcture capital companA from inuestrnents mad.e bll utag of shares of long-terrn finance itt anA enterpn:;e carryirug on tLrc bzzsiness oJ deueloping, maintair'.ing and operating ang infrastructure facilitg, rahich fitlfils the conditions specified in sub srzction (4A) of se<:tion B0-lA. Explanation. For the purposes o/ this clause

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,S.CHALAPATHI RAO

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 OF CIT (A) AND THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS APPEAL

Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur. vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Kangiri.

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

12 and 12A/12AA of the IT Act. The plea that deletion of Section 10(29) and amendment of Section 10(20) with effect from 01.04.2003 disentitles the market committees from being treated as ‘charitable institutions’ under Section 2(15) of the IT Act, was rejected. The relevant observations are as under (para 30). The first contention raised by the counsel

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

12 and 12A/12AA of the IT Act. The plea that deletion of Section 10(29) and amendment of Section 10(20) with effect from 01.04.2003 disentitles the market committees from being treated as ‘charitable institutions’ under Section 2(15) of the IT Act, was rejected. The relevant observations are as under (para 30). The first contention raised by the counsel

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-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

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Capital gains. F.—Income from other sources. 10. Section 22 of the Act deals with income from House property which reads as under: Income from house property. 22. The annual value of property consisting of any buildings or lands appurtenant thereto of which the assessee is the owner, other than such portions of such property as he may occupy

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

12 of the assessment order  it has been mentioned by Assessing Officer  that according to the assessment order for  Asst.   Year   1991­92   read   with   order   under  section 154 there is no carry forward loss,  therefore, no set off of the same is given.” 9.4. Referring to the above facts which are not in  dispute, it was submitted that the Tribunal

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

12 of the assessment order  it has been mentioned by Assessing Officer  that according to the assessment order for  Asst.   Year   1991­92   read   with   order   under  section 154 there is no carry forward loss,  therefore, no set off of the same is given.” 9.4. Referring to the above facts which are not in  dispute, it was submitted that the Tribunal

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

12 of the assessment order  it has been mentioned by Assessing Officer  that according to the assessment order for  Asst.   Year   1991­92   read   with   order   under  section 154 there is no carry forward loss,  therefore, no set off of the same is given.” 9.4. Referring to the above facts which are not in  dispute, it was submitted that the Tribunal

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gains, as an essential object for forming an AOP. However the CBDT Circular explaining the above insertion states that such insertion was only to take care of the claim of certain bodies that they did not fall within the definition of a ‘person’ for the sole reason, that they were not supposed to have any income or profits. Section

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 10(38) for long term capital gains for shares held longer than 12 months, as well as the claim

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Srimantha Granites

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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 for A.Y.1 2008-09 under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) and revised returns excluding capital gains

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

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 for A.Y.1 2008-09 under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) and revised returns excluding capital gains

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

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 for A.Y.1 2008-09 under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) and revised returns excluding capital gains

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

Sri Natakari Gopal vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and 2 Others

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 3Rd January, 2023. Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mita, Adv. ..For Appellant Mr. Pranit Bag , Adv. Mr. A. K. Mishra, Adv. Mr. Debdatta Saha, Adv. …For Respondent Re: Ga/1/2022 The Court:- Heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, Learned Advocate For The Appellant & Mr. Pranit Bag, Learned Advocate For The Respondent. There Is A Delay Of 1126 Days In Filing The Appeal. Though The Reasons Given In The Affidavit Are Not Convincing The Issues Involved In The Appeal Had Been Decided By This Court In Earlier Matters, This Court Exercises Discretion & Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal. Accordingly, The Application Is Allowed.

Capital Gains of Rs.1,12,13,010/- and also claim bogus exemption u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on such amount of LTCG claimed, thereby giving rise to the vice of flaw in the decision making processes ? We have heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Pranit Kumar Bag, learned Counsel