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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

capital asset existing in the hands  of the assessee and there was no transfer within  the meaning of Section 2 (47) of the Act, 1961,  as under: “6. The Scheme of the Act envisages a conjoint  reading  of   provisions   of   Sections   45,   2(47)  and 2(14) of the Act. Under section 45 of the  Act,   any   profits   or   gains

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

capital asset existing in the hands  of the assessee and there was no transfer within  the meaning of Section 2 (47) of the Act, 1961,  as under: “6. The Scheme of the Act envisages a conjoint  reading  of   provisions   of   Sections   45,   2(47)  and 2(14) of the Act. Under section 45 of the  Act,   any   profits   or   gains

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

capital asset existing in the hands  of the assessee and there was no transfer within  the meaning of Section 2 (47) of the Act, 1961,  as under: “6. The Scheme of the Act envisages a conjoint  reading  of   provisions   of   Sections   45,   2(47)  and 2(14) of the Act. Under section 45 of the  Act,   any   profits   or   gains

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

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,S.CHALAPATHI RAO

14. We have noticed the auditor’s report, certified with a qualification that the profit and loss account and balance sheet referred to in the report comply substantially in all material respects with the 16 applicable accounting standards referred to in Section 211(3C) of the Companies Act except the land and building sold during the year, the capital gain

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Srimantha Granites

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act and therefore attract tax on the Capital gains. 7. Opposing the appeals, Shri

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act and therefore attract tax on the Capital gains. 7. Opposing the appeals, Shri

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act and therefore attract tax on the Capital gains. 7. Opposing the appeals, Shri

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 infrastntcture capital fund or an infrastructure capital compang from inuestments made before the 7"t daA of June, 1998 bg utay of shares or long-terrn finance in ang enterprise carrying on th.e business of deueloping, maintaining and operating ang infrastructure facilitg shalL not be included and the prouisions of this clause as it stood immediately before

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

capital gain was also assessed. According to the assessee therein, the possession of the land was handed over as only a licence to develop the land and not a possession as contemplated under Section 53A. The project was also terminated. The High Court accepted that argument. The Hon'ble Supreme Court did not find it necessary to go into

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

14. Save as otherwise provided by this Act, all income shall, for the purposes of charge of income-tax and computation of total income, be classified under the following heads of income :— A.—Salaries. B.— [***] C.—Income from house property. - - 20 D.—Profits and gains of business or profession. E.—Capital gains. F.—Income from other sources. 10. Section

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

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

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 45 of the Act, as betuecn thc tliulsf L'rols ind the uansferee, the transaction compietc s-hen the share cerdficates are handed or'.'r. It *;rs .rlso commented that the mere f,rct thet rhc conrpenl has not registered the transier ir-r its b,rols rv,.r1rld j11q1l1''\' the claim that the transfer tooli plece tlrlv lrter

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

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

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

gains;] Chapter III contains provisions which deal with incomes which do not form part of total income for the purpose of levy of income tax. As of now, there are fourteen (14) sections. These can be conveniently grouped into four categories. Section 10 enumerates incomes from various sources of various institutions and persons which shall not be included in computing

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

gains;] Chapter III contains provisions which deal with incomes which do not form part of total income for the purpose of levy of income tax. As of now, there are fourteen (14) sections. These can be conveniently grouped into four categories. Section 10 enumerates incomes from various sources of various institutions and persons which shall not be included in computing