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

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

capital has been provided by the government under Section 23(1) and the Government is only paid interest thereon under Section 28(1) just as interest would be paid on any money due as a debt. That the activity of the respondent Corporation is not carried on with the object of making profit is made abundantly clear by the provisions

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

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

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

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

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 of the finding

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

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

13,20,OOOl at a vaiue of Rs.24 l- per share' The capital gain '"vas Rs.31,56,8O,000/-. After indexation, lhe long-term capital gain arrived at Rs.31,43,80,590/ . The respondent c laimed to have invested the amount c'f sale t*r- * ,dt&+re. 4 i 4 consideration in Konaseema EPS Oakwell Power Limited, an industrial

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

13. The explanation appended to Section 115JB provides certain Items which if debited to the profit and loss account can be added back to the net profit for computing the book profit. Clause (b) of the said explanation provides for the amount carried to any reserves by whatever name called. In the present case, it is true that the capital

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

C.—Income from house property. - - 20 D.—Profits and gains of business or profession. E.—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

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. 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

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 (TDS), vs. M/s Country Club Inda Limited

13 of 57 17. According to the AO, the Assessee was ―a shadow company of Nortel Group.‖ 18. On the basis of its findings, the Assessee concluded that Nortel India and Nortel LO constituted the Assessee‘s PE in India (both Fixed Place PE as well as Dependent Agent PE). 19. In view of the finding that the Assessee

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1,57,000 ­  Rs.   75,000/­.   Same   loss   of   Rs.   82,000/­is  therefore directed to be allowed in the sale of  shares of Mysore Cement. As regards UTI master and  L & T shares, no rate adjustment is called for and  loss   as   claimed   of   Rs.   15,31,250/­   is   to   be  allowed   in   full.   Thus,   total   short   term   capital

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1,57,000 ­  Rs.   75,000/­.   Same   loss   of   Rs.   82,000/­is  therefore directed to be allowed in the sale of  shares of Mysore Cement. As regards UTI master and  L & T shares, no rate adjustment is called for and  loss   as   claimed   of   Rs.   15,31,250/­   is   to   be  allowed   in   full.   Thus,   total   short   term   capital

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1,57,000 ­  Rs.   75,000/­.   Same   loss   of   Rs.   82,000/­is  therefore directed to be allowed in the sale of  shares of Mysore Cement. As regards UTI master and  L & T shares, no rate adjustment is called for and  loss   as   claimed   of   Rs.   15,31,250/­   is   to   be  allowed   in   full.   Thus,   total   short   term   capital

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

C) of the Managing Partner and also letter dated 28.8.2003 (Annexure-D) of the assessee admitting that the possession of the property was handed over, and that MAPL had possession of the property since 4.12.1998. Based on these admissions of part performance, the assessee was proceeded against. No return for the year under consideration was filed till the search