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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gains   tax   or   capital   loss,   the  essential requirements are that there should  be a transfer of a capital asset effected in  the   previous   year.   This   would   require  ascertainment   of   the   meaning   of   the   terms  transfer and capital assets. Transfer has been  defined, in relation to a capital asset, to  include   various   contingencies   stipulated   by  sub­clauses of Section 2

M/s. Canara Securities Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO,T.AMARNATH GOUD

2 companies and certain other individuals as Directors of 4 listed companies, 3 subsidiaries of one listed company and an unlisted company is bad in law since the Joint APLs merely represents the estate of PDB and thus, had no rights to seek appointment of Directors in companies in which PDB was not a "Member". Further, without prejudice

M/S NATIONAL ACADEMY OF CONSTRUCTION vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

151 of CPC praying for the aforesaid reasons s,urted in the accompanying affidavit filed therewith, the Horr'bie Court may be pleased to pass an order staying all further proceedings pursuant to the order of the assessment dated 28-02-2006. Oc,unsel for the Appellant: SRI S. RAVI Counsel forthe Respondent: Ms. K. MAMATA 'l tre Court delivered

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

In the result, the order of the income tax appellate tribunal

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

151/- and created a demand of Rs.2,99,27,080/-. 3. The assessee challenged the order passed by the Assessing Officer in an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which was 5 dismissed by an order dated 02.02.2012. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for short

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Shri Raaj Kumar Jain

Section 27 begins with a proviso and states that when any fact is deposed to as discovered, in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved, 49 whether it amounts to a confession

The Commissioner of Income Tax- I vs. M/s. Avon Organics Limited

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

151, this distinction was highlighted and elucidated in the following words:- “................That is why it is important to consider ITA 257/2012 Page 6 of 18 whether the expression used in the Indian statute for setting up a business is different from the expression Mr. Justice Rowlatt was considering, viz., "commencing of the business." It seems to us, that the expression

M/s Durga Granites, vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1,

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

2. The Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Jharkhand Mantralaya (Project Building), PO. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand), 3. The Director, Mines Directorate, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Yojna 2025:JHHC:29619-DB 52 Bhawan, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi-8334002 (Jharkhand), ........... Respondents. ----- With