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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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  has brushed aside the relevant facts and has  relied upon the irrelevant facts to hold that  the   assessee   is   not   entitled   to   claim   the  loss suffered

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax [Central] vs. Smt P Sujana

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

Capital gains” and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub-section (1) of section 72, or sub-section (2) of section 73, or sub-section (2) of section 73A or sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74, or sub- section (3) of section 74A, he may furnish, within the time

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

gains‟ in their hands in their returns would not be relevant in deciding the issue whether the payment by the Assessee should be treated as „business expenditure.‟ As explained by the Madras High Court in CIT v. Sarda Binding Works 102 ITR 187 (Mad), it is the point of view of the payer which is relevant. 37. The decision

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

gains‟ in their hands in their returns would not be relevant in deciding the issue whether the payment by the Assessee should be treated as „business expenditure.‟ As explained by the Madras High Court in CIT v. Sarda Binding Works 102 ITR 187 (Mad), it is the point of view of the payer which is relevant. 37. The decision

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

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

Capital Gain which is found to be incorrect. He submits that the penalty was imposed upon the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 591 of 2017 by order dated 06.06.2018 which was challenged by the petitioner before the First Appellate Authority and the First Appellate Authority affirmed the penalty thereafter the Second Appellant Authority by order dated 15.07.2020 set aside the penalty

The Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. G Pulla Reddy Chritable Trust

In the result, the orders passed by the Commissioner of

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

capital gains is assessable only as business income. The Assessing Officer thereafter issued a notice under Section 154 of the Act on 13.12.2012 proposing

The Commissioner of Income tax vs. M/s. ragamayee bAr AND Restaurant,

The appeals stand dismissed

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

capital gains; or (b) income of the nature referred to in sub-clause (ix) of clause (24) of section 2, (c) income under the had “Profits and gains of business or profession” in case where the income accrues or arises under the said head for the first time, and the assessee has paid the whole of the amount

The Commissioner of Income Tax - III, vs. M/s. Suven Pharmaceuticals Limited,

Appeals are dismissed

154 or section 155 or section 250 or  section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or  section 263 or section 264 or an order of the  Settlement Commission under sub­section (4)  of section 245D, the amount on which interest  was   payable   under   sub­section   (1)   or   sub­ section (3) has been increased or reduced, as  the   case

SRI PRASANCHAND SURANA SEC.BAD

Appeal is dismissed

section 154 was passed on 18.02.1998 whereby total undisclosed income was reduced to Rs. 59,42,186/-. 2.2 Being aggrieved by the order, the assessee preferred appeal before the ITAT and the Tribunal vide impugned order directed the A.O to take the sale consideration as per sale deeds in relation to sale of six plots by assessee for the purpose

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

Capital Gain during the Financial Year 2013-14 relevant to Assessment Year 2014-15; and the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner attempted to evade tax. A complaint was filed against the petitioner by the Union of India through the concerned officer being the Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Unit-II, Ranchi in the court of learned Special

The Commissioner of Inccome Tax-III vs. Speectra Shares AND Scrips Pvt Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

capital leading to profits of business, which profits may be either enjoyed or put back into the business to acquire more properties for further profitable exploitation." ITA Nos.11/2008, 12/2008, 279/2010, 282/2010, 292/2010 -25- 8.4 Next decision on the point is Sultan Brothers Pvt. Ltd. The assessee, a limited company, being the plot owner, developed it into a building fitted with

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

Capital) Appeal No. 1475 of 2009 corresponding to Reference No. 3 of 2009, by a co-ordinate bench of this Court on 11th September, 2009. The judgment of this Court in 'XYZ' has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. (s). 2227 of 2010, decided on 15.2.2011, with summary dismissal of appeal. 15. Separate and distinct trials

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

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

Section 178 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the Chairman of the company, HVL cannot arrogate unto himself the power to cause such appointment when such power ultimately rests with the Board of Directors. The observation of the two Joint APLs that the evident performance of BCrL, the flagship company of MP Birla Group is deteriorating ever since, HVL became

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

gain as General Manager (HR&A) "Bidyut Unnayan Bhaban", Plot No. 3/C, LA Block, Sector-III, P.O. - Salt Lake City, P.S.- Bidhannagar, District- Kolkata, West Bengal, PIN – 700106 ..........Petitioner. -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, having its office at Yojna Bhawan, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand